Ta tema ne govori o tem, ali je možno pozdraviti raka ali ne, temveč o tem, kakšne odločitve sprejemajo zdravniki zase in kakšne za druge, ko gre za veliko verjetnost, da ozdravitev ni možna. Moje mnenje je, da ravnajo povsem pametno, saj vejo, da je je trpljenje manjše, če svoj preostali čas preživijo z družino, tisti boleči konec pa oddelajo s paliativno oskrbo.

saj vem, da je tebi težko kaj dopovedat, ampak kruto je dejstvo, da ti nekdo iz lastne družine reče, raje umri, kot da imam jaz s tabo dodatno delo.
kako pa kaj se pa človek odloči, je pa itak njegova stvar[/quote]

lej če je bolezen terminalna boš umrl v vsakem primeru, če te operirajo pa ti podaljšujejo agonijo ali pa če ne, dodatno delo s takim bolnikom je pa tudi v vsakem primeru ali gre na operacijo ali ne in ja kruto dejstvo, če je bolezen terminalna pač umreš, samo kar ti jaz dopovedujem je to, da je bolj kruto ta varianta, da večina svojcev kljub želji bolnika vztraja pri tem, da hodi na žnj kemoterapij in operacij četudi ne pomagajo kaj dosti in je potlej cel halo če se tak bolnik odloči umreti prej in odklanja “zdravljenje”, če že injekcije ne sme dobit.[/quote]

kar se mene tiče, je treba spoštovat željo bolnika, pa naj bo ta želja nadaljnje zdravljenje, ali pa prenehanje s tem. ne pa da mu namigneš, naj se zaradi tvoje komoditete blagovoli evtanazirat in spravit s sveta, da ti ne bo v nadlego.

kar se pa “terminalnosti” bolezni tiče
mojemu očetu so pred dvema letoma diagnosticirali raka na prostati, lečeči zdravnik mu je dejal da ima bolj malo šans in mu namignil, da nima smisla, da se poslužuje nadaljnega zdravljenja. HVALA BOGU, da je poslušal sosedo, ki je tudi zdravnica, zaposlena na onkološkem inštitutu, ki ga je vseeno prepričala, da naj gre v zdravljenje – obsevanja.

danes še vedno živi normalno življenje, brez vsakih bolečin, z izgledi, da je zaenkrat rak ustavljen.

Da njena lastna sestra, s katero sta se zelo ljubili in spoštovali ji je rekla naj se ne operira. Če bi se, bi ta sestra in tudi drugi sorodniki pomagali in ji nudili kar se da. Mi vemo, da je bil ta nasvet mišljen dobronamerno in tudi teta ga je vzela kot odkrit pogovor o bolezni, stanju, dvomu kaj narediti. Sorodnica, zdravnica je na vsak način vztrajala da se operira in zdravi. Rak je bil potrjen.
Ne vemo ne kako ne zakaj ampak preprosto je bolezen zvodenela.
Mislim, da je najtežje tam, kjer se o bolezni, zdravljenju, negi in pomoči ne pogovarjajo, bolnika tolažijo da bo vse dobro nihče pa ga ne vpraša kaj misli sam, kako razmišlja, doma ne najdejo časa da bi ga negovali ampak ga šetajo po bolnicah, obiskujejo ga, bojijo pa se, da ga bodo poslali domov.
To mislim, da je za rakave bolnike, ki se zavedajo kakšna bolezen je to najhuje.

Ob tem je treba NA DEBELO poudariti, da rak ni raku enak in da večina rakov prostate, za katerimi zbolijo starejši moški, niti približno ni ne invazivnih ,e hitro naredujočih in tudi ne smrtnih. Večina se jih dobro zazdravi.

Ko govorimo o sarkomih, o adenokarcinomih, o pljučnem raku … pa je situacija ZELO drugačna.

Hja, če bi dobil tistega, ki udari na hitro, bi z 90{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465} možnostjo umrl v pol leta. Manj kot 5{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465} možnosti je, da bi preživel naslednjih 5 let (tudi z zdravljenjem). Je pač imel takega, kot je večina rakov na prostati – počasi rastočih, življenjsko nenevarnih. Ali pa spada med tistih par procentov srečnežev, ki preživijo več let kljub agresivnosti tega raka.

jst še vedno verjamem, da je vsaj pri raku velik faktor pri pomoči k ozdravitvi oz. čim lažjem prenašanju bolezni to, da bolnik ostane pozitiven, ni pod stresom in čim manj misli na to ter živi svoje življenje še naprej aktivno oz. tako kot ga je pred diagnozo pa da čim manj ljudi ve za bolezen, ker ko so pa zadeve enkrat v bolnišnici je pa več al manj konstanten stres za bolnika najprej nervoza, ker so na urniku vedno neke preiskave, terapije in operacije, potlej sprememba prehrane, omejitev gibanja in aktivnosti + vsa kemija, ki jo kasira bolnik + konstantni obiski tega in onega prijatelja, vse žlahte itn. ko enkrat pride ven informacija, da ima pa ta in ta človek raka…

temu moram žal pritrditi.
vir: družinska izkušnja….
Res je tudi, da se rak v visoki starosti (recimo nad 75 let) počasneje razvija, odziv organizma na invazivno terapijo (beri kirurgija, kemoterapija, obsevanje) je pa bistveno slabši, tako da je včasih vprašlijvo, ali se odločiti za zdravljenje ali ne.[/quote]

ta sorodnica je bila takrat stara blizu 70 let in praktično dokler ji niso postavili diagnoze sploh ni vedela, da je z njo karkoli narobe, potlej jo je pa najprej zdelal strah, ker ni vedela kaj in kako, še dodatno pa, ko so jo odprli in zaprli ter ji postavili “datum”, svoje je naredila še prilagojena dieta, da je praktično postala kot okostnjak in to v zelo kratkem času…[/quote]

Ljudje smo si različni tudi v tem. Moja mami je imela raka na črevesju in so jo operirali pri slabih 70, nato je sledila kemoterapija (to je bilo res hudo). Napovedali so ji cirka 30-procentov možnosti, da bo preživela operacijo. Zaenkrat je vse okej, ampak še enkrat se ne bo zdravila, niti na kolonoskopijo ne gre nikoli več v življenju. Jo razumem in bom spoštovala njeno željo, če bo treba.
Verjetno zdravniki razmišljajo podobno. Prepričana sem, da se gredo zdravit, če imajo dobre možnosti za ozdravitev, če pa so slabe, pa verjetno res ne.

Gunnar, se popolnoma strinjam s teboj. Poslušajte (you tube) in berite (Kemoterapija zdravi raka ali zemlja je ravna plošča) dr. Lotharja Hirnese-ja.
Vse prevečkrat se ob postavljeni diagnozi prepustimo odločanju o načinu zdravljenja zdravnikom ki imajo ustaljeno prakso: operacija, obsevanje, kemoterapija. In to je to. Za vse enako. Organizem se pa od organizma razlikuje.
Znano je da veliko rakavih bolnikov umre ravno zaradi izčrpanosti podhranjenosti.
Se splača še kaj dodatnega prebrat, vzet na znanje …

Ko mi je za rakom umrla mama, sem tudi sama razmišljala, da bi, če bi imela raka, verjetno odklonila zdravljenje. Seveda takega raka, za katerega bi vedela, da je zelo visoka umrljivost in ni možnosti za čisto ozdravitev, ampak gre samo za zazdravitev.
Pri njej je trajalo 6 mesecev muk, brez kemoterapije pa ne vem, koliko bi še živela. Življenje v času kemoterapije res ni bilo kvalitetno, težko jo je prenašala.

To je pa čista laž in natolcevanje, da bi se bolnike z rakom vse po vrsti zdravilo po ustaljeni shemi ‘operacija, obsevanje, kemoterapija’. Ali lažete ali pa v resnici ne veste kaj dosti o načinih zdravljenja raka, ki so uveljavljeni v slovenski onkologiji, drugega ne morem napisati.

Resnica je takšna (to pišem iz svojih izkušenj in iz poznavanja dela na onkološkem inštitutu), da se pacientu vedno čim natančneje specificira njegov tip raka in se šele nato za vsakogar posebej konzilij na osnovi teh podatkov odloči, kakšno zdravljenje bo pacient imel. Pri tem se upošteva tudi pacientova specifika (starost, druge njegove bolezni, celo njegove želje…). In seveda se pacienta nikoli ne zdravi proti njegovi volji. Tudi se zdravniki o metodah zdravljenja pogovorijo s pacientom in ni res, da bi nad pacientom izvajali terapije, za katere bi jim težili pacientovi sorodniki, pacient pa bi jih odklanjal.

Nikoli se ne izvaja kemoterapije pri tistih tipih raka, ki so na kemoterapijo neodzivni, prav tako se recimo biološko zdravljenje izvaja le tedaj, ko je tip tumorja tak, da se na to zdravljenje odziva. Poznam zelo veliko pacientk, ki so kot jaz zbolele za rakom na dojki, pa niti ena ni imela takšne sheme zdravljenja, kot je bila moja. Prav tako smo imeli v družini bolnika s težjo obliko levkemije in tudi on bi vam lahko potrdil, da so imeli pacienti z levkemijo, ki jih je spoznal med zdravljenjem, precej različne tretmaje zdravljenja. Moja stara mama je zbolela za rakom dojke pri svojih 80 letih. Kakšno mlajšo pacientko bi po besedah onkologa v tej situaciji operirali in ji kasneje dali kemoterapijo, nje pa pča niso, ker so ocenili, da je prešibka. Raka so ji potem ustavili s hormonsko terapijo, ki pri precej mlajši pacientki najbrž da ne bi bila zadostna, pri njej pa je bila.

Želim samo povedati, da zdravemu je res enostavno opletati z jezikom in dajati v nič slovensko onkologijo. Ampak dejstva so pa drugačna. Upam, da vam tega nikoli ne bo treba spoznavati od blizu na lastnih izkušnjah.

Ko se o teh stvareh zares odločaš, svet naenkrat ni več črnobel. In kako strahotno težko je pustiti bolnika, ko moraš v službo, ni pa žive duše, ki bi lahko poskrbela zanj. Sama sem pustila službo, da sem mamo lahko negovala, ker tak bolnik te zadnje mesece potrebuje ne samo 24 ur, ampak 26 ur na dan. In ne boš verjel/a, ko je šla za kak dan v bolnico, smo imeli doma “počitnice”. Po cel dan sem počivala. Težko je komurkoli kaj očitati. Res vse tisto bruhanje, driska, klistirji, pitanje, prigovarjanje, da naj vsaj pol žličke, kuhanje juhic, ker “mogoče bo pa zvečer frišno zelenjavno župco”, spremljanje na WC dokler gre, potem pa umivanje, skrb za preležalnine, skrb ali si prav doziral morfij……, ni piknik v življenju. Ne vem, če sem bila kdaj tako izmučena. Fizično in psihično. Smrt je bila odrešitev. Za mamo in za vse okoli nje.

Ko rak prostate preide v koncne faze ni nic vec pocasen in zazdravljiv
In ocetu SO ugotovili agresivno obliko v 3 e stadiju (5+4)

Narobe si vzela moj post. Nisem hotela dajati v nič slovenske onkologije, nikakor. Seveda ne zdravijo vseh vrst rakov enako, to bi bila prava neumnost, so pa postopki zelo podobni in si nekako vkalupljen v sistem. Hotela sem poudarit, da obstajajo tudi druge vrste zdravljenja, take, ki obravnavajo človeka kot celovito osebnost in ne samo kot pacienta. Ko je rak smo simptom. In ni vse v rezanju, žarčenju in kemijskemu sesuvanju imunskega sistema, ki ga je potrebno potem spet vzpostavit. In vem o čem govorim – iz bližine.

moja mama sicer ni zdravnica, je medicinsk sestra in je več kot 15 let preživela na otološki kliniki, kjer se je dnevno srečevala z bolniki z rakom na grlu, ipd. tudi ona je rekla, da se niti slučajno ne bi zdravila če bi imela raka, ampak bi v “miru” počakala na smrt (ali pa bi se ubila, če bi bila prehudo). glede na to kaj vse je videla in doživela ji čisto verjamem da bi to res naredila in glede na to da sem njena hči bi tudi jaz verjetno podbno ukrepala če bi ga sama imela.

V kmetijski zadrugi prodajajo veliko stvari s katerimi si lahko skrajšaš trpljenje. Ker zakaj bi se mučil, da bi preživel kvečjemu pet slabih let, če pa lahko srečen umreš kot ESKIM.

Mene pa zanima a kdo ve, kako hitro rak napreduje iz 1. v 4. stadij?
A se to šteje v mesecih ali letih?
Berem malo po netu in časopisih, pa me je prav groza, koliko je zdaj tega.
Težko je, če si hipohonder in te je vsega strah.

potem zelo verjetno NI BIL rak debelega črevesja…
[/quote]

Verjetno res. Po moje je imela notranje hemeroide ali pa kakšen tromboziran hemeroid.
Vsaj po prebranem sklepam. Ker piše, da je krvavenje ponehalo in je živela še 20 let.
Verjetno ni mogoče pozdraviti to bolezen vsaj brez nujne operacije, ali pač?

Res debilna logika. Tudi jaz poznam moškega, ki je po diagnozi hitro umrl. Pa ga niso nič odpirali. To je tako, ker z zdravnikom odlašajo do zadnjega, dokler ni že zelo hudo. Potem so pa zdravniki krivi, ko umre, ko ga hitro razžre rak. Gre za ljudi, ki ne upajo k zdravniku, ker se bojijo slabih novic. Zdravniki jih tako dobijo v roke v zadnjem stadiju raka. Seveda potem hitro umrejo. In po butalski logiki je krivo to, da so šli k zdravniku, ne to, da niso šli pravi čas. Vsaka čast, res.

Poznam primer, ko je ženska umrla zaradi pljučnega raka, odkritega v 4. stadiju. Po njenih besedah že tri leta ni bila okej. Tako da to so leta, ko imaš možnost, da ti raka odkrijejo. Izrazito invazivni raki seveda izvzeti. Samo k zdravniku je treba. Tako to ko zdravi ljudje rečejo, da se ne bi zdravili, je krneki. Kako boš reagiral, veš šele, ko zboliš. In zelo malo je ljudi, ki nimajo volje živeti, tudi če zbolijo.

This hard-hitting blogpost by Ken Murray, a retired Los Angeles family doctor, helped open up discussions about why doctors routinely administer treatments to dying patients that they would adamantly refuse for themselves.
Years ago, Charlie, a highly respected orthopaedist and a mentor of mine, found a lump in his stomach. He had a surgeon explore the area, and the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer. This surgeon was one of the best in the country. He had even invented a new procedure for this exact cancer that could triple a patient’s five-year-survival odds – from 5{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465} to 15{04cafd300e351bb1d9a83f892db1e3554c9d84ea116c03e72cda9c700c854465} – albeit with a poor quality of life.

Charlie was uninterested. He went home the next day, closed his practice, and never set foot in a hospital again. He focused on spending time with family and feeling as good as possible. Several months later, he died at home. He got no chemotherapy, radiation, or surgical treatment. Medicare didn’t spend much on him.

It’s not a frequent topic of discussion, but doctors die, too. And they don’t die like the rest of us. What’s unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared to most Americans, but how little. For all the time they spend fending off the deaths of others, they tend to be fairly serene when faced with death themselves. They know exactly what is going to happen, they know the choices, and they generally have access to any sort of medical care they could want. But they go gently.

Of course, doctors don’t want to die; they want to live. But they know enough about modern medicine to know its limits. And they know enough about death to know what all people fear most: dying in pain, and dying alone. They’ve talked about this with their families. They want to be sure, when the time comes, that no heroic measures will happen – that they will never experience, during their last moments on earth, someone breaking their ribs in an attempt to resuscitate them with cardiopulmonary resuscitation (that’s what happens if CPR is done right).

Almost all medical professionals have seen what we call “futile care” being performed on people. That’s when doctors bring the cutting edge of technology to bear on a grievously ill person near the end of life. The patient will get cut open, perforated with tubes, hooked up to machines, and assaulted with drugs.

img-focus71

All of this occurs in the Intensive Care Unit at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a day. What it buys is misery we would not inflict on a terrorist. I cannot count the number of times fellow physicians have told me, in words that vary only slightly, “Promise me if you find me like this that you’ll kill me.” They mean it. Some medical personnel wear medallions stamped “NO CODE” to tell physicians not to perform CPR on them. I have even seen it as a tattoo.

To administer medical care that makes people suffer is anguishing. Physicians are trained to gather information without revealing any of their own feelings, but in private, among fellow doctors, they’ll vent. “How can anyone do that to their family members?” they’ll ask. I suspect it’s one reason physicians have higher rates of alcohol abuse and depression than professionals in most other fields.

I know it’s one reason I stopped participating in hospital care for the last 10 years of my practice. How has it come to this – that doctors administer so much care that they wouldn’t want for themselves? The simple, or not-so-simple, answer is this: patients, doctors, and the system.

To see how patients play a role, imagine a scenario in which someone has lost consciousness and been admitted to an emergency room. As is so often the case, no one has made a plan for this situation, and shocked and scared family members find themselves caught up in a maze of choices. They’re overwhelmed. When doctors ask if they want “everything” done, they answer yes. Then the nightmare begins. Sometimes, a family really means “do everything,” but often they just mean “do everything that’s reasonable.” The problem is that they may not know what’s reasonable, nor, in their confusion and sorrow, will they ask about it or hear what a physician may be telling them. For their part, doctors told to do “everything” will do it, whether it is reasonable or not.

The above scenario is a common one. Feeding into the problem are unrealistic expectations of what doctors can accomplish. Many people think of CPR as a reliable lifesaver when, in fact, the results are usually poor. I’ve had hundreds of people brought to me in the emergency room after getting CPR. Exactly one, a healthy man who’d had no heart troubles (for those who want specifics, he had a ‘tension pneumothorax’), walked out of the hospital.

If a patient suffers from severe illness, old age, or a terminal disease, the odds of a good outcome from CPR are infinitesimal, while the odds of suffering are overwhelming. Poor knowledge and misguided expectations lead to a lot of bad decisions.

But of course it’s not just patients making these things happen. Doctors play an enabling role, too. The trouble is that even doctors who hate to administer futile care must find a way to address the wishes of patients and families. Imagine, once again, the emergency room with those grieving, possibly hysterical, family members. They do not know the doctor. Establishing trust and confidence under such circumstances is a very delicate thing. People are prepared to think the doctor is acting out of base motives, trying to save time, or money, or effort, especially if the doctor is advising against further treatment.

Some doctors are stronger communicators than others, and some doctors are more adamant, but the pressures they all face are similar. When I faced circumstances involving end-of-life choices, I adopted the approach of laying out only the options that I thought were reasonable (as I would in any situation) as early in the process as possible. When patients or families brought up unreasonable choices, I would discuss the issue in layman’s terms that portrayed the downsides clearly. If patients or families still insisted on treatments I considered pointless or harmful, I would offer to transfer their care to another doctor or hospital.
Should I have been more forceful at times? I know that some of those transfers still haunt me. One of the patients of whom I was most fond was an attorney from a famous political family. She had severe diabetes and terrible circulation, and, at one point, she developed a painful sore on her foot. Knowing the hazards of hospitals, I did everything I could to keep her from resorting to surgery. Still, she sought out outside experts with whom I had no relationship.

Not knowing as much about her as I did, they decided to perform bypass surgery on her chronically clogged blood vessels in both legs. This didn’t restore her circulation, and the surgical wounds wouldn’t heal. Her feet became gangrenous, and she endured bilateral leg amputations. Two weeks later, in the famous medical center in which all this had occurred, she died.

It’s easy to find fault with both doctors and patients in such stories, but in many ways all the parties are simply victims of a larger system that encourages excessive treatment. In some unfortunate cases, doctors use the fee-for-service model to do everything they can, no matter how pointless, to make money. More commonly, though, doctors are fearful of litigation and do whatever they’re asked, with little feedback, to avoid getting in trouble.

Even when the right preparations have been made, the system can still swallow people up. One of my patients was a man named Jack, a 78-year-old who had been ill for years and undergone about 15 major surgical procedures. He explained to me that he never, under any circumstances, wanted to be placed on life support machines again.

One Saturday, however, Jack suffered a massive stroke and got admitted to the emergency room unconscious, without his wife. Doctors did everything possible to resuscitate him and put him on life support in the ICU. This was Jack’s worst nightmare. When I arrived at the hospital and took over Jack’s care, I spoke to his wife and to hospital staff, bringing in my office notes with his care preferences. Then I turned off the life support machines and sat with him. He died two hours later.

Even with all his wishes documented, Jack hadn’t died as he’d hoped. The system had intervened. One of the nurses, I later found out, even reported my unplugging of Jack to the authorities as a possible homicide. Nothing came of it, of course; Jack’s wishes had been spelled out explicitly, and he’d left the paperwork to prove it.

But the prospect of a police investigation is terrifying for any physician. I could far more easily have left Jack on life support against his stated wishes, prolonging his life, and his suffering, a few more weeks. I would even have made a little more money, and Medicare would have ended up with an additional $500,000 bill. It’s no wonder many doctors err on the side of overtreatment.

But doctors still don’t over-treat themselves. They see the consequences of this constantly. Almost anyone can find a way to die in peace at home, and pain can be managed better than ever.

Hospice care, which focuses on providing terminally ill patients with comfort and dignity rather than on futile cures, provides most people with much better final days.

Amazingly, studies have found that people placed in hospice care often live longer than people with the same disease who are seeking active cures. I was struck to hear on the radio recently that the famous reporter Tom Wicker had “died peacefully at home, surrounded by his family.” Such stories are, thankfully, increasingly common.

Several years ago, my older cousin Torch (born at home by the light of a flashlight – or torch) had a seizure that turned out to be the result of lung cancer that had gone to his brain. I arranged for him to see various specialists, and we learned that with aggressive treatment of his condition, including three to five hospital visits a week for chemotherapy, he would live perhaps four months.

Ultimately, Torch decided against any treatment and simply took pills for brain swelling. He moved in with me.
We spent the next eight months doing a bunch of things that he enjoyed, having fun together like we hadn’t had in decades. We went to Disneyland, his first time. We’d hang out at home. Torch was a sports nut, and he was very happy to watch sports and eat my cooking. He even gained a bit of weight, eating his favorite foods rather than hospital foods. He had no serious pain, and he remained high-spirited.

One day, he didn’t wake up. He spent the next three days in a coma-like sleep and then died. The cost of his medical care for those eight months, for the one drug he was taking, was about $20.

Torch was no doctor, but he knew he wanted a life of quality, not just quantity. Don’t most of us? If there is a state of the art of end-of-life care, it is this: death with dignity. As for me, my physician has my choices. They were easy to make, as they are for most physicians. There will be no heroics, and I will go gentle into that good night. Like my mentor Charlie. Like my cousin Torch. Like my fellow doctors.

Se strinjam z odpiralcem teme. Ko izveš za diagnozo, seveda poskusiš narediti vse, da se pozdravi, če pa so rakaste celice že razsejane po telesu, če imaš metastaze, ti več ni pomoči. Zdravila, kemoterapija,… samo podaljšujejo agonijo. Bližnji sorodnik je bil v takšni situaciji. Odločil se je, da terminal ega raka ne bo zdravil… Umrl je v šestih mesecih, brez bolečin, v spanju mu je prenehalo biti srce. Samo zadnji mesec je bil zelo, zelo slaboten, prej je živel normalno.

Da se ozdraviti tudi razsejane metastaze. Če je po kemi in obsevanju sploh še kaj celic ostalo. Imunski sistem je fuč, zato smrt.
Cel pristop konvencionalne medicine je zgrešen v nulo, že pri samem diabetesu idr.boleznih. Pri raku pa sploh.
Huje, kot bi živeli v 14.stol., ne v 21.
Zdravniki delujejo kot včasih mehaniki, ko so namest v odtrgan jermen v mašino za silo povezali s hulahopkami. Dokler je šlo, je šlo.
Če pa ni, pa ni.

V Ameriki imajo tudi fakultete za naturopatijo, pa za kiroprakso, zato so zdravniki lahko seznanjeni še s kakšnim drugačnim načinom zdravljenja, ne samo z uradno verzijo. Verjetno se nekateri poslužujejo naravnega/naturopatskega zdravljenja, ki z dietnim režimom in spremenjenim načinom življenja telesu omogoči popolno ozdravitev.

V ožji družini in v širšem sorodstvu smo imeli veliko raka, od slinavke do želodca, mehurja, itd., vsega skupaj 11 ljudi. Pozdravili niso niti enega. Od diagnoze do smrti je bilo v razponu od 1 meseca do 2,5 let. Ne vem, ali je naključje ali ne, ampak tisti, ki niso imeli nobenega zdravljenja, ali so jih le odprli in zaprli, niso potožili, da bi jih kaj dosti bolelo, če sploh, so pa postali šibki in so shujšali, medtem ko so tisti, ki so imeli tudi kemo in obsevanje, proti koncu pristali na morfiju zaradi hudih bolečin. Zanima me, če je to le naključje, ali je kaj dejansko na tem.

Bi prej rekla, da ste potegnili genski kratki konec za raka. V naši družini imamo tudi veliko raka, ampak manj agresivne oblike in so zdravljenja uspešna. Je pa res, da v dovolj zgodnji fazi, kemoterapija ni bila potrebna. Ključno je zgodnje odkrivanje in sreča pri loteriji, za kakšno obliko raka zboliš. Trebušna slinavka je praktično najhujši rak, ki ga lahko dobiš in skoraj neozdravljiv. Želodec tudi.