A cure for cancer?

Remove all ads!

I've direct experience with incompetent doctors - I'll never trust one again. With the medical field being so broad, it actually IS possible to know more about a certain area than the doctor, depending on who the doctor is and what he/she has specialised in.

 

Elendrile, we are talking about terminal illness cases, not cures for teenage acne. It's about letting someone take a risk because they're going to die anyway if they don't.

 

I am completely aware of what we are discussing. My point is that as a patient you have to let your doctor do their job. The only descisions you should be making are the ones you are asked to make, and those are either of no consequence whatsoever, or could put your life at stake.

My point is that patients don't have the right to prescribe any type of treatment that requires a doctor, that's what MD's are for. You can either accept the treatment, or you can refuse it. Some people have actually expressed the opinion that if there is some experimental treatment that shows high potential they should be able to demand it if it can save their life. Experimental treatments can be nothing but empty promises or can carry extreeme risks, sometimes both. It's always best to let your doctor make these decisions because there's not a snowball's chance in hell you'll make an objective one. The more serious a medical condition, the better care a patient will recieve, generally speaking. So just trust the doctors already.

 

You're saying a doctor shouldn't offer you information about a potential cure for a terminal affliction based on his opinion? This isn't about perscribing treatment, this is the patient becoming aware of the treatments avaliable. A GP can't perscribe brain surgery, however he CAN tell you that you will need to see a specialist to deal with your problem.

The specialist will know what treatments are avaliable because he specialises in his particular field.

Objective? The decision you would make would change your diagnosis from 'certain death' into 'potential death with potential side effects'. Since it is the doctor's job to know about these things the doctor will also know the status of the treatments and the potential side effects. It is his job to inform you of these side effects before you take ANY treatment.

If the treatment is not successful well then you weren't promised it would be. Also this would assist the medical field because you would have provided yourself as a test subject for the treatment (willingly obviously). The information gained from the experiment/treatment would in turn assist other similar cases in the future.

I don't understand how you could be against this idea. A patient should be allowed to demand treatment for a terminal affliction. It's their damn life and I fail to see what gives doctors the authority to deny someone the right to live.

 

The only thing a patient can demand from a doctor is the best care possible. If the patient doesn't think he's getting that treatment, he should go find another doctor.

@Abomination: You're not getting this. If a treatment is still in the experimental stage, a patient can DEMAND anything he wants - unless the doctor is participating in the clinical trials AND the patient fits the criteria set forth by the sponsor for test subjects, he ain't gonna get nothin'. No way, no how, no matter how obnoxious he gets in his demands.

 

No, it is your basic right as a patient.

[ September 01, 2004, 16:01: Message edited by: Chimera ]

 

Actually, on the same program last night, they said that "a powerful union" and iirc the Australian Medical Association are finally getting behind Dr Holt and finally launching a full investigation/examination whatever-they-called-it.

About damn time after 30 years of doing what he does and being ignored by "them".

And I think it most certainly is well within a person's rights to volunteer for trial remedies for terminal illnesses if a chance at life is on offer. I know I'd want that.

 

Well obviously the doctor must be participating in the trail in order for the patient to recieve the treatment from him. I wasn't suggesting that a patient demand the treatment from any doctor. But they should be able to demand all information about the treatment and if their doctor doesn't know he should direct his patient to a doctor who does.

On the fitting the criteria issue, well, what type of criteria is required apart from suffering from the affliction the treatment is supposed to cure? I'm not going to demand an experimental treatment for an affliction I am not suffering from.

 

For clinical trials, the criteria you have to meet depends on which phase it is at, and includes type/stage/degree of cancer, current prescriptions, allergies, age, gender, ethnicity, other medical problems not cancer related, pregnancy, and depending on the treatment there may be other things like - oestrogen receptor positive, or bcr-abl positive, which are requirements for tamoxifen and Glivec respectively.

Patients are given forms to sign before participating in trials. Half of them will be on placebo, but they should know this. Funnily enough patients on placebo more often than not do better than patients on the actual treatment.

For Phase I trials, you are not expected to even respond to treatment. The main purpose is to look for side effects.