I will be on Science Friday today, sometime between 3:30 and 4:00 PM EST, with Ira Flatow. In New York, it will be on WNYC, on KQED in San Francisco at their time for the show (a three-hour time change). Check your local listings, or listen at your convenience on their podcast.
My last post, The Top 10 Reasons Why Buffett’s Decision to Get Treated for Prostate Cancer Bugs Me, resonated with a lot of people.
As some readers know, I have been writing about prostate cancer for a very long time. I have covered many annual meetings of the American Urological Association, breaking news in medical journals and in Urology Times. Over the years, I have spoken with key opinion leaders in the field. I also ran the urology blog and website at about.com. Like many of you, I have had relatives diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Issues linked to prostate cancer encompass everything from questions about diagnosis and treatment to health reform and reimbursement for medical services. Less hard to discuss in a public venue are concerns about how men feel about treatment: are impotence, incontinence, and quality of life impacted by aggressive treatment? –can you choose no treatment when the healthcare system is built around treatment? Men and their significant others deserve nothing less than the best, unbiased information.
Best of luck; you’ll do great. Incredibly important issue. You can actually save lives–there’s more harm in what Buffett is doing than benefit!
Bravo! Much needed dialogue on this. Look forward to hearing you on the radio.
As a purported “medical journalist,” you seem to be extremely ignorant of the medical literature that shows the longevity of men like Warren Buffet – active and engaged men whom have lived to 80 years old – have a significant chance of becoming a centenarian. And considering the fact that Mr. Buffet probably pays in excess of $100,000 in taxes per day, it is absurd that you could insinuate that his decision is financially unsound. It would be fiscally irresponsible to refuse treatment to him!
His body, his life, his choice. Ageism is alive and well (perhaps Buffet will alter that mindset). Add it to the rest of the isms.
Absolutely, his body, his life, his choice. I agree. My point is largely that the evidence of benefit is not there. Plus there is evidence of harm: impotence, incontinence, bowel problems. If you read some of the comments, you’ll see that some people see no added benefit. Big difference is that he is rich: he can pay for whatever he wants. I hate to see the healthcare system pay for things that are not beneficial, when there is little proof of benefit, and possible harm. I’d rather see health care dollars go to get old people hearing aids, have their diabetes managed, or get home care when they need it.