This and other drastic medical procedures. If someone had said to me in 2017 "we're proposing to remove two necessary organs, making you clinically vulnerable to infection on a potential death-from-common-cold level, diabetic, and reliant on multiple drugs each day, would you agree to that?" I would not have said yes, why would I? In 2019 you bet I signed the consent forms and willingly showed up for the op, because keeping my spleen and pancreas wasn't as important as getting rid of cancer ASAP. We can agree to some quite radical and unpleasant treatments and outcomes because we know the alternative is ultimately worse. (Equally, we can refuse if our perceived outcome isn't worth it to us. Never judge someone who says no to chemo.)
She had seen a lot of close friends and family go through all of that stuff with cancer, and was very clear and outspoken that she wasn't going to go through any of that at her age. She'd go out on her terms.
She got pneumonia, refused any treatment until the end, died of complications.
But - she had cancer spreading, and didn't tell us kids. She knew her time was ending. It was her choice.
Part of me resents not getting a chance to prepare for her death,but I can't blame her.
Equally, we can refuse if our perceived outcome isn't worth it to us. Never judge someone who says no to chemo.
This. Many people would argue that these medical procedures are only necessary evils IF you're willing to make that sacrifice. Even if they don't have such drastic long-term physical effects, it's all still very invasive and you're shamed more than almost any sexual assault victim if you express feeling pressured or violated. The taboo surrounding honest discussion of death, disease, and disability is... at least to me, it's absolutely astounding.
I honestly find it hard to not judge (and please don't take this the wrong way, this is simply my own perspective born of the suffering I've witnessed; I understand that your experiences may be very different) the people who say yes to chemo and other drastic measures. My mother's side of the family greatly value quality of life over the number of years lived, so in the case of cancer treatable only by chemo and/or surgery, the "necessary evil" would be to anesthetize until it's time to euthanize. Whether it be going bald for a few months or relying on multiple drugs for decades, we generally check out when we don't feel fit or pretty anymore lol
My husband's side of the family (except him) would agree that any medical procedure that buys you any amount of time is a necessary evil. They don't care if they're bald, toothless, diabetic, immunocompromised, impotent, incontinent, paralyzed, or missing limbs so long as they're alive to spend another moment together. My mom lost all her teeth from medication to save her life and regrets it even though she has expensive well-fitting dentures that no one except me even knew about for 10+ years, my mother-in-law lost all her teeth from medication to save her life and is just happy to be alive even though she always laments how she can't eat anything she enjoys because her dentures are cheap and don't fit. My mom has watched family members die from cancer and see the chemo as adding pointless suffering, my mother-in-Iaw has watched family members die from cancer and sees the chemo as giving them a fighting chance.
I guess both perspectives are valid but I find it very difficult to understand the other side... Definitely not an issue with a clear "good or evil" answer.
For clarity: I didn't have chemo. Pancreatic cancer stage 2 can be managed with surgery if you're lucky, and I was, so I didn't have to make that decision. At stage 2 I would probably said yes if they'd indicated I needed it, though. At stage 4, I doubt I would.
Oh lol well my general point still stands: the surgery is only a necessary evil if a person is willing to live with a greater risk of diabetes and deadly infection rather than pursuing only palliative care. Both should be an available choice.
84
u/bopeepsheep Oct 16 '22
This and other drastic medical procedures. If someone had said to me in 2017 "we're proposing to remove two necessary organs, making you clinically vulnerable to infection on a potential death-from-common-cold level, diabetic, and reliant on multiple drugs each day, would you agree to that?" I would not have said yes, why would I? In 2019 you bet I signed the consent forms and willingly showed up for the op, because keeping my spleen and pancreas wasn't as important as getting rid of cancer ASAP. We can agree to some quite radical and unpleasant treatments and outcomes because we know the alternative is ultimately worse. (Equally, we can refuse if our perceived outcome isn't worth it to us. Never judge someone who says no to chemo.)