English Kings named Charles and dying due to their own stubbornness - name a better duo.

  • Saeculum [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    11 months ago

    I have family that got cancer around 75, had chemo and lived another 15 years, and that was treatment on the NHS, not the best care money can buy.

    • hamid@startrek.website
      ·
      11 months ago

      Absolutely an edge case and not typical of anyone's experience. Several of my family members are dead after painful chemo in their 50s

      • Saeculum [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        11 months ago

        It's an outlier sure, but it's not tremendously unlikely. 61% of men diagnosed with cancer at 75 survive at least 5 years.

        • hamid@startrek.website
          ·
          11 months ago

          I simply do not believe that first statistic that you googled from a Finnish study. 80 is over the median age of most people. Now if you are King Charles and you are probably going to die in 5 - 10 years anyway do you want to spend your last 5 years extremely sick getting poisoned by chemo or do you want to spend it doped up on drugs having everything you can possibly want while you get to be the king you waited for 75 years to be then meet the inevitable anyway?

          • Saeculum [he/him, comrade/them]
            ·
            11 months ago

            80 is over the median age of most people

            Sure, but if you make it to 75, you are considerably more likely to make it to 80 than the median person.

            The median person also does not have parents that each made it to their late 90s, or access to the world's best medicine.

            • hamid@startrek.website
              ·
              10 months ago

              And you really think someone who has the best medicine in the would choose to not treat because they are dumb dumbs or because they probably know its useless to treat? If I were him I wouldn't take chemo either after watching what it did to my sister in her 50s.

              • Saeculum [he/him, comrade/them]
                ·
                10 months ago

                And you really think someone who has the best medicine in the would choose to not treat because they are dumb dumbs

                Yes. Look at Steve Jobs, plenty of people refuse treatment for easily curable diseases. Being rich and powerful does not stop you from being a moron.

                • hamid@startrek.website
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  I don't think you know the whole story and you think you know what happens inside peoples heads. Steve jobs had pancreatic cancer with a 5 year survival rate of 10% for eight years, he already beat the odds. He had a kind of cancer computer fabricators got in the 70s and ravaged grey beard engineers across silicon valley.

                  You really have no idea what you are talking about, what it is like to be sick and what chemo does to you. It is their right not to seek treatment and to go out with dignity if that is their decision and that doesn't make them a moron.

                  • Saeculum [he/him, comrade/them]
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Steve jobs had pancreatic cancer with a 5 year survival rate of 10%

                    Steve Jobs has a neuro-endocrine tumor that was diagnosis before metastasis occured. This had a 5-year survival rate of 93% at the time of his diagnosis.

                    Removal of the tumour would have been a relatively routine and low risk surgery, which would have vastly increased his chance of survival, but he waited nine months to pursue treatment, trying to cure it himself with veganism and acupuncture.

                    he already beat the odds.

                    He could be alive today if he'd listened to his doctors and family.