Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Phil Tanny's avatar

Excellent article. I can add nothing to the medical angle, but there are other angles to consider too.

Let’s use President Biden as an example. I believe he’s 82. If he were totally cured of his cancer, that doesn’t really solve the problem given his age. If he was totally cured of one thing, that’s really just setting the stage for the next problem.

My Dad died of prostrate cancer, but he went pretty quick, so there was no hospital horror show. My Mom died of Parkinsons, which can be brutal over an extended period of time, 15 years in her case.

What I’m trying to get at here is that it seems difficult to analyze the desired course of action in these cases unless we have some basis of comparison. Where does President Biden think he’s going after this life? He seems to be a serious Catholic, so that gives us a clue, but perhaps none of us REALLY know what we believe until the end?

Many seniors suffer enormously as they reach the end of their lives. Some giant percent of all health care spending occurs in the last year of life.

Assuming a person is 80+ years of age, I would propose that serious illness at that age is not really a medical issue, but a philosophical one. How one would approach treatment would seem to depend a lot on what one considers the alternative to treatment to be.

The medical community has the best of intentions. But to the degree they push advanced treatments which may come with many ugly side effects, they are unintentionally sending a dark philosophical message.

“As bad as your current situation is, the alternative is even worse”

While that may indeed be true, it seems important to make clear that this is not a science based assumption, because there is no proof of that statement’s validity.

We might be wary of looking to the medical community for advice on matters which, so far at least, really have nothing to do with science.

Expand full comment
Tom Spradley's avatar

Harvard researchers followed 1000+ men with early-stage prostate cancer for several years. Compared with men who rarely ate eggs, men who ate even less than a single egg a day appeared to have twice the risk of prostate cancer progression. The only thing worse for prostate cancer than eggs was poultry: Men with more aggressive cancer who regularly ate chicken had up to four times the progression risk. A single daily serving of cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, or kale may cut the risk of cancer progression by more than half.

A 2015 meta-analysis found that high intakes of dairy products—milk, low-fat milk, and cheese, but not nondairy sources of calcium—appear to increase total prostate cancer risk.

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts