5 replies to this topic

[calmcookie]

Published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The media (I heard on radio), may have twisted the report somewhat, but I still believe that the most significant phrase is:

" ... a third of medical "care" is devoted to services that do not necessarily
improve health outcomes."


http://dms.dartmouth...03_fisher.shtml

From my experience, such "services" not only FAIL TO IMPROVE OUTCOMES, BUT ALSO HAVE SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL TO DO HARM. Again, I am not blaming doctors ... but a system with a completely botched set of incentives.

Be well, C.C.

(will soon have non-profit website up with summary views and practical tips)

Edited by calmcookie, 09 January 2006 - 09:03 AM.

[mss]

From my experience, such "services" not only FAIL TO IMPROVE OUTCOMES, BUT ALSO HAVE SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL TO DO HARM.  Again, I am not blaming doctors ... but a system with a completely botched set of incentives.
Be well,  C.C.   

........"For patients, our findings underscore the importance of evidence-based and conservative practice," Fisher said. "Where major treatment choices are involved, patients should ask: What's known about the outcomes of this treatment compared to the best alternative? And where there is uncertainty, our findings suggest a more conservative approach to treatment may be just as safe -- and perhaps safer -- than a more aggressive approach."

Because I asked the questions, am in the 5 year cure of cancer and did NOT have a major organ removed, "standard practice", survival rate the same and a hell of a difference in quality of life.
People must question what are their options and get informed.
mss

[calmcookie]

MSS - Thank you for your comment and I'm so happy you're a survivor. More work, this morning, on non-profit, health education website ... very excited about it. Will eventually be up under the name - LoveNewHealth.com. (by end of month). Health and prosperity to all, C.C.

Edited by calmcookie, 09 January 2006 - 11:58 AM.

[gman]

Because I asked the questions, am in the 5 year cure of cancer and did NOT have a major organ removed, "standard practice", survival rate the same and a hell of a difference in quality of life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

mss,

Do tell. What kind of cancer did you have and what course did you pursue to be a five year cure/survivor?

[mss]

Because I asked the questions, am in the 5 year cure of cancer and did NOT have a major organ removed, "standard practice", survival rate the same and a hell of a difference in quality of life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

mss,
Do tell. What kind of cancer did you have and what course did you pursue to be a five year cure/survivor?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In 2001 was informed that I had bladder cancer and that the standard practice was to remove the bladder. Then take chemo once a week for 12 weeks. The outlook survival was 3-5 years and if I made it to 5 years then the chance of it coming back was the same as if I had never had it.
After asking some questions, second choice was to remove a small portion of the bladder, take a different type of chemo, two days every four weeks four times. Called "sledgehammer chemo", knocks you on your @ss for 3-4 days and takes the next three weeks to get back up to do it again. The survival rate is 3-5 years AND YOU DO NOT WALK AROUND WITH A BAG STRAPED TO YOUR LEG AND and you can still have sex etc.
Because of the Grace and Love of GOD, I am still here and doing well.
mss

[OEXCHAOS]

Boy, Scott... I'm glad we still have you around and I'm glad you kept your head screwed on when making your choices. Well done. Mark