B
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> Real-life example of why that's a bad thing to do. A good friend of mine, 37
> years old, went to the doctor because he'd been feeling fatigued lately. The
> doctor does one test, then tells him he's got liver cancer. Don't know what
> you know about that sort of thing, but liver cancer is pretty much a 95%
> death sentence. My goodness, we (and he) really thought he was going to die,
> and his decline had been pretty rapid, so it looked like it might be soon.
> THREE DAYS LATER more tests were done... tests that should have been done
> IMMEDIATELY when the first test indicated something was seriously amiss,
> most-likely cancer.
>
> #1: My friend shouldn't have been told he had liver cancer until the doctor
> was positive, which isn't the case until a different type of test comes back
> indicating so, and then followed by a biopsy. You really need to be POSITIVE
> of something like that before you tell someone they need to get their
> affairs in order 'cuz they're not going to be around much longer.
>
> #2: The doctor being so positive about what the initial test meant ended up
> delaying the appropriate treatment for three days.
>
> But getting to your point about a "cancerous biopsy"- even those are checked
> out by more than one person. There's a lab tech who initially reports on the
> findings (the section on the slide), and then an oncologist who verifies it.
> As I've been through this thing twice (wife & father), I've got a pretty
> good handle on the procedure.
You're not going to believe this, but exactly the same
thing happened to a guy I know. The docs told him he had
finger cancer.
Ben
>
> Real-life example of why that's a bad thing to do. A good friend of mine, 37
> years old, went to the doctor because he'd been feeling fatigued lately. The
> doctor does one test, then tells him he's got liver cancer. Don't know what
> you know about that sort of thing, but liver cancer is pretty much a 95%
> death sentence. My goodness, we (and he) really thought he was going to die,
> and his decline had been pretty rapid, so it looked like it might be soon.
> THREE DAYS LATER more tests were done... tests that should have been done
> IMMEDIATELY when the first test indicated something was seriously amiss,
> most-likely cancer.
>
> #1: My friend shouldn't have been told he had liver cancer until the doctor
> was positive, which isn't the case until a different type of test comes back
> indicating so, and then followed by a biopsy. You really need to be POSITIVE
> of something like that before you tell someone they need to get their
> affairs in order 'cuz they're not going to be around much longer.
>
> #2: The doctor being so positive about what the initial test meant ended up
> delaying the appropriate treatment for three days.
>
> But getting to your point about a "cancerous biopsy"- even those are checked
> out by more than one person. There's a lab tech who initially reports on the
> findings (the section on the slide), and then an oncologist who verifies it.
> As I've been through this thing twice (wife & father), I've got a pretty
> good handle on the procedure.
You're not going to believe this, but exactly the same
thing happened to a guy I know. The docs told him he had
finger cancer.
Ben
