If I don't RANT, I'll burst.

It's amazing that they leave out the little details,like heart disease and lung damage and it's not just the rad onc, its the breast surgeon the PS, the regular onc ect. They fail to tell what might happen if you have surgery or treatment, I would love to turn it around sometime. And I am sure they are concerned about making the car payment, but how about the  medical code ethics? I could go on but, I would be here all night.

YOU hang-in there Kiddo !  "Mother" is back and very angry that the Medical community has just placed 99 % of the women out there on the "Ditz" list and actually get-away with not telling them much of anything. . . much less the TRUTH, and never "THE WHOLE TRUTH !  If the "whole truth" were known, many decisions would be quite different, and someone ought to stuff a rag in their pushy mouths because they pressure the women into "immediate" decisions that may or may-NOT be the right ones, based on the knowledge that is out there....  OUT THERE ?  Yes, and pretty cotton-pickin' scary too !   Not enough **NEW** stuff available to make an informed decision !  What is "out there" are pictures and text about mostly OLD (worse-yet) procedures..... It is almost impossible to imagine what THOSE women went through.

  Next, there is no difference between an addiction and an addiction, and smoking is no different of a comfort to get through something awful any more than sucking you thumb in the corner with your Blankie would be !   Smoking is a real medical problem and should be addressed as one, with help and aids, and something other than the "You are weak and stupid" act, or worse, "Go ahead, eat instead ?  That is a great one, Chemo didn't put enough weight on you ?

    The Rad-Onc should be personally responsible for that decision that the "QUITTING" is complete and the woman is back into some sort of comfortable mode * before starting * ...... how hard can THAT be given today's resources ?  OK, OK, I do know that every step is even scary than the one that proceeded it, but where is everyones priorities ? ? ? 

  May God Bless all of these brave women, and give them inner courage beyond what they need.  Hang in there Kiddo !  Love, Bambers88 *Mother*  ~ ~ ~

I remember when I met with the radiation oncologist and he sort of slipped those risks into the end of his presentation. I was like "Wait, hold on - permanent lung damage, permanent heart damage, permanent deformity to the breast - WHAT?" He downplayed them, said in 30 years of practice, he hadn't seen them happen (he was chair of the department), talked a lot about how targeted the beam is, how superior than previous technologies, etc. I went ahead with it and came out completely fine - the whole thing was a total breeze for me (ESPECIALLY after chemo).

But here's how I look at it. Maybe it will help somebody.

Radiation (or chemo, or surgery for that matter) aren't perfect treatments. They have risks of side effects, some of them quite scary. But for where medicine has evolved to, right now in 2010, this is the best we've got. We can take it or leave it, but these doctors (as imperfect as THEY are, just like the technologies) have devoted years of training to the purpose of saving and prolonging lives - NOT making car/boat/vacation home payments.  This is a very difficult field to be in - they have seen many people die. No one would choose oncology just for the money. 

So IF someone said "Hey, you DON'T have cancer but do you want radiation? Here are the side effects" - OBVIOUSLY you would say no.  But this isn't a preventative. It isn't a theoretical thing or experimental treatment. We ALREADY have developed cancer.  If untreated, it will grow, spread, and kill us. Sometimes I have had a hard time grasping the truth of that, since I never felt sick, or had symptoms other than a small lump. But it is true nonetheless.  So given that cancer has ALREADY happened to me, the importance of treating it is paramount.  Small % of possible side effects pale in comparision to the known effect of the cancer if it progresses.  For me, that was a chance I was willing to take.  And these doctors have SEEN the effects of cancer that spreads. They live with the reality of the people who did not beat it.  I think that is why they place this priority on treatment - knowingthese are the only weapons in their arsenal to give us, and hoping we will avoid the worst of the side effects, beat the cancer and go on to live long happy lives.

i'm NOT deifying doctors or nurses.  But I have had such wonderful compassionate care that I really hate when people villify them or accuse them of alterior motives. They're just regular people trying to do a very difficult (and probably often painful) job.

From the way the rad onc explained it to me, the statistical improvement in chances of survival after radiation are much higher than the risk of side effects caused by the radiation.  That was enough for me to be convinced to go ahead.

I hope maybe my convoluted thought process might reassure somebody out there.

Amy

I would be very proud to say I was down to 5 a day, good for you! My oncologist told me " smoking is bad for you (when I started chemo) however now is not the time to be worrying about that, you do whatever (my husband asked could I smoke pot!) it takes to get through this." He repeated the statement when I was diagnosed with breast cancer the following year. I still smoke a pack a day, not proud of myself for this, but we all have our vices, bet your rads onco is addicted to golf, fancy cars and expensive meals  lol