 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / January 2006Prostate chemo
My dad was undergoing chemotherapy for his prostate. About a month ago, he was on his last monthly chemo treatment after having had a total of eleven or so. Disaster struck on the final monthly treatment. Instead of going into his bladder, the poisonous chemicals went into his body. Nobody knew this, so he went home after treatment, only to find a short while later that he was really, really sick. The doctors hospitalized him immediately. He was in the hospital for about 3 weeks. The chemicals' effect on his body made him extremely weak and bed-ridden. I've never seen him so weak. Well, after about 3 weeks, the hospital realeased him to his home, where my Mom was taking care of him, but he's still in bad shape. When his doctor saw him, the doctor said the first hospital should not have released him, and the doc re-hospitalized him at a second hospital. Anyway, the docs say he should return to normal, but it may take 6 to 9 months. Some of the chemicals are still in his body. The original care-takers said that what may have happened maybe was that his bladder could not hold the chemicals from the final chemo treatment, and so the chemicals went into his body. Is this a common occurrence? I have to wonder if the catheter either leaked the chemicals into his body or perhaps the catheter was not properly positioned in his bladder--perhaps it became dislodged? I just don't know. Something does not seem right to me. I only remember that about 15 years ago when I was hospitalized very briefly for a minor procedure, some IV fluids leaked into my arm, instead of going into the bloodstream. When I woke up, my arm was plumped up, almost balloon-like. The needle had not been inserted properly, and so the fluids drained into the surronding muscle tissue, instead of going into the blood stream. When a nurse passed by in the morning, she commented that 5 or 6 people on the floor all had swollen arms from improperly placed IVs. Well, I have to wonder about my father. I hope he returns to normal. Should I consult an attorney? email address: NYETT999@hotmail.com > My dad was undergoing chemotherapy for his > prostate. About a month ago, he was on his last monthly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > his body. > (snip) I'm mystified. I do not know of any prostate cancer (PCa) chemotherapy that is infused/injected into the bladder. Since the bladder is a repository for waste prior to its expulsion from the body, I cannot see the clinical justification. I suspect that this poster misunderstands the nature of the treatment (tx). Clarification would enable us to respond better to his inquiry. Regards, Steve J "We must tailor the treatment to the nature of the disease. We must listen to the biology." -- Stephen B. Strum, MD Steve J wrote: > I suspect that this poster misunderstands the nature of the treatment > (tx). Clarification would enable us to respond better to his inquiry. Thank you for your post. I will try to get a clarification tomorrow, and perhaps post again. My Dad and I are in two different cities most of the time, and it's very possible I misunderstood how the chemo was administered. Thank you again. I was a juror on a medical malpractice trial for 8 days before Christmas. Fairly complex and a death was involved but we found for the doctors. Took nearly 5 years for case to come to trial and there were some very expensive medical witnesses which plantiff will have to pay. Fortunately part of case was settled out of court so plantiff will not lose money. Consensus of judge and lawyers I discussed with is that lawyers were greedy and/or, as young attorneys, wanted the practice. I'd hate to get caught up in a mess like this myself. > Consensus of judge and lawyers I discussed with is that lawyers were greedy and/or, as young attorneys, wanted the practice. You are really playing fast and loose with the facts, Frank. No judge would ever say that about the lawyers who tried a civil case before him. "Practice", possibly part of it, in some cases, but "greedy" no way. A juror in a civil case generally knows very little about the case, they are only asked to resolve particular factual issues, and determine whether the law, as stated by the judge, requires that the resolution of those facts imposes liability on a party. You don't know enuf about the case to be able to make such a comment. You lack an understanding of the civil trial (and procedure) process and how the role of the juror fits into that. I have been practicing law for 8 years, after a mid-career shift. I was an IT consultant b4 that. I deal directly with clients and do civil litigation along with estate work. The less educated a client, the more difficult it is for the lawyer. For many reasons. Such clients don't understand the lawyer's role in resolving their dispute, don't know how to relate to the lawyer, and both have difficulty (fully) understanding each other in communication. I suggest that if you don't have a college degree, or a substitute for it by liberal self-learning, you are more likely to have difficulties with lawyers. It'll end up taking a lot more of the lawyer's time to get your objective accomplished because you are more difficult to communicate with. You will tend not to trust your lawyer, which causes problems. You won't be a good consumer and shop for a lawyer like any other consumer service. Just blaming "lawyers" for your problems won't help anyone, and will hurt the less well educated who may be less inclined to trust their lawyer's judgment when they should. Most civil cases don't get to trial for many reason. There are many screens they have to go through in order to get to a full fledged trial. In Illinois, a doctor must review a malpractice case and state under penalty of perjury that it is likely there was malpractice. In other states that don't require this, cases are subject to being dismissed or summarily disposed of by the judge if the facts and the law of the case do not support going to a trial. The legal system is far from perfect. I would make a lot of changes to it if I could be the dictator, but I'm not. I have to live with what we have. I've tried arbitration and will never go that route again. When you arbitrate there is a big risk that the issues of your case will not get resolved properly - the arbitrators may improperly decided to "mediate" and just cut each party's claims down the middle, rather than doing a timely and painstaking review of the facts and the law in order to determine the merits of each party's case. Just railing against "lawyers" in general only makes you look like a fool. If you want to contribute a solution you need to educate yourself to the process, discuss solutions with responsible parties, and motivate the powers-that-be to make a change. Unlike medicine, lay people can do this because the law is not for the most part esoteric. Instead, it is for the most part common sense, and has evolved over centuries in a piecemeal fashion in order to solve particular problems at particular times. The biggest problem with uneducated clients is they will never (for the most part) understand or believe how much time it takes for a lawyer to resolve a particular matter or achieve a particular objective. They think a lawyer has all the law in his head, at any given time. Of course, this isn't true even when the lawyer limits his practice to only one area of the law (as all lawyers should do). The less well educated the client the more trusting he needs to be in order for the lawyier-client relationship to be functional, because such a client will not be able to understand the reasoning the lawyer would normally share with them as to the advisable approach to resolving the matter or the achieving the objective. Most cases of lawyer-bashing arise from a lack of an attorney-client relationship or a disfunctional one - consumers who haven't been able to trust their lawyers, aren't educated enuf to be a functional client for the matter at hand, or haven't been able to hire an attorney to represent them in a dispute. I'm not playing fast and loose with facts. To clarify somewhat, judge did say "lawyer greed" and other lawyers said "practice". Judge's comment was in jury room after verdict. Never saw any bias during trial. Lawyers comments were not trial lawyers but others intimately familair with case and lawyers involved. This was my first time as a juror but I prefer not to go into the details I learned after the trial. My initial comments were basically to say that too often someone will pull the legal trigger too fast. Original poster should have father's health as paramount concern and worry about medical malpractice thereafter. Love your Dad, Chemo is very hard on the body. Steve Jordan said it right! My sister in law had chemo for breast cancer and she was struggling with the therapy. I prefer to talk to the Dr.s and not get a lawyer involved. I am sorry your dad had such trauma.... Chemo is a way of almost killing the person, in hopes to killing the cancer. That is the way I see it. Anyway I am not much help, and hope with Steve Jordans response you get a better understanding of the chemo. One of the largest problems in America is (mal practice) attorneys, and all the above. It has made the cost of medical care skyrocket. We need to trust our Dr.s and stop this (lawyer involvement) with problems that are life threatening... John Loomis > My dad was undergoing chemotherapy for his > prostate. About a month ago, he was on his last monthly [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > email address: NYETT999@hotmail.com >One of the largest problems in America is (mal practice) attorneys, and all the above. It has made the cost of medical care skyrocket. This is really a stupid comment, John. At least lawyers, unlike preachers, play a functional role in our society. How do you propose to make doctors accountable when they screw up? Do you think they are just going to admit their mistakes and fess up voluntarily? The U.S. economy is probably the most efficient large scale economy in the world, the envy of many. A good part of this is due to our well developed justice system, which gives market participants a good opportunity to assess the risk of alternative courses of action. Relative to most developing and smaller economies things are quite predictable in the U.S., and this is why the world invests in our US bonds more than those of any other country's. I'd say a bigger problem in America is citizens who don't bother to take the time, and make the effort, to educate themselves to real world problems and suggest meaningful improvements to the way things are currently done. Instead, they just rant and rave as if, 'if only they could dictate' the solutions everything would be better. > I'd say a bigger problem in America is citizens who > don't bother to take the time, and make the effort, to educate > themselves to real world problems and suggest meaningful improvements > to the way things are currently done. Instead, they just rant and rave > as if, 'if only they could dictate' the solutions everything would be > better. Well-put summary of a giant problem I only recently recognized when *I* first began making the effort to educate myself on the really important issues. I'm not sure I'm any better off, however, because the bigger the issue, the less weight one voice carries; I'm very seriously considering ceasing my education in the IMPORTANT issues, buying an iPod, and just tuning out again. That will become FAR more urgent and important if either of my cancers returns; I have no intention of spending my last years PO'd at half the country and most of the world. If I need any adjuvant tx, ESPECIALLY prostate chemo, my news sources get shut off. That, or I crank 'em up and spend those last months crankin' UP my voice. I.P. It's on the contrary an intelligent and often-made comment. Lawyers, like preachers, play a functional role in society. Preachers provide people many services including spiritual guidance. Most lawsuits stem from inability to resolve complex emotional issues, which would be best resolved through other means, including spiritual guidance. Unfortunately, the deep materialism in our society often leave individuals with little apparent choice in redirecting their grief, anger, etc. "How do you propose to make doctors accountable when they screw up." There are many ways to screw up, and so there should be many ways of correcting those ways. A good way would be to openly access what happened, why it happened, and to institute public transparent measures to prevent it from happening in the future, there and everywhere else subject to the same conditions. The obviously most important and numerous cases of malpractice are those that are chronic and ubiquitous, but are kept hush-hush because bringing these things into the open to fix is generally punished. What instead happens are lots of lawsuits, most of which are simply a waste of money and a boon for lawyers, and some that are a huge drain on both the economy and on humanity. I'm not just referring to large payouts, which do hurt the bottom line for everyone (except perhaps the plaintiffs and attorneys), but to the effects of minor lawsuits, that affect medical practice, usually not for the better. There are currently no nationwide efforts to report on mistakes or adverse outcomes in medical care. This results in defensive medicine; unnecessary, expensive, time-consuming medicine that distracts from true problems, annoys with its legal complexities, and discourages doctors from doing their darndest to be good doctors. There's far more to say here, but let's focus on you, the consumer of medical care. What eventually happens is that medical care simply becomes more expensive, for everyone. It's barely affordable now. $3x10^8 payouts, which happen, don't help medical care. They only make people play the lottery, and the lawsuit lottery. Punitive actions rarely make anything better. If you want positive change, positive reinforcement is obviously the way to go. The US legal system is not one to provide that. The American economy is far from efficient, and is obviously on a precipitous course downhill, despite a non-enviable but slowing growth rate of some 3%. I'm only partly referring to the workings of the US government, whose 10y bonds are earning less than its 2y bonds now. While most economists are dallying about this issue and whether this an indication of recession, to anyone sensible about anything this is an ominous sign. The American economy, and most other first world economies, are wholly dependent on foreign sources of oil, a resource that is quickly dwindling, and whose supply-demand curve has painfully whipped the US several times in the past, and will do so even more wildly in the future. Yes, the US economy is very predictable. It reacts very predictably to oil prices and news about Chinese currency. Oil prices will likely be stable for another year or so (unless the big bad hurricanes come again and wreck the Gulf platforms), but they'll keep shooting up, past 80, 100, 150 a barrel. Do you think the US economy will remain so stable with that exponential climb? The American economy, and most other first world economies, are dependent on an educated middle class. I'll not say any more here since, as a former teacher, I can dispense with a wry laugh. The American economy, and most other first world economies, are going to be crushed by the baby-boomer generation. The US will be especially disfigured because of what malpractice lawsuits have forced medicine to become here, especially for the elderly. We still spend nearly half of all medical care on a person's last 30 days of life. We spend very little on preventitive care. We invest alot into expensive biomedical technology which everyone will demand 20 years from now. We invest very little in education, or renewable energy. Well, there are books to write on this and everything in between. If I were you, I'd not discourage people from voicing their opinions, rants, raves, etc. -- that's how impetus builds and change happens ... You'll probably disagree, though :) ___ This is really a stupid comment, John. At least lawyers, unlike preachers, play a functional role in our society. How do you propose to make doctors accountable when they screw up? Do you think they are just going to admit their mistakes and fess up voluntarily? The U.S. economy is probably the most efficient large scale economy in the world, the envy of many. A good part of this is due to our well developed justice system, which gives market participants a good opportunity to assess the risk of alternative courses of action. Relative to most developing and smaller economies things are quite predictable in the U.S., and this is why the world invests in our US bonds more than those of any other country's. I'd say a bigger problem in America is citizens who don't bother to take the time, and make the effort, to educate themselves to real world problems and suggest meaningful improvements to the way things are currently done. Instead, they just rant and rave as if, 'if only they could dictate' the solutions everything would be better. Sorry, I do not take on your argument. Dr.s are the best and when they fail, and people die or get injured, I am sorry it is not the Dr.s fault....People die, Lawyers like to watch people die, and then make money on that. Sick I trust all Dr.s, and not all lawyers.....funny. I am paying 2000.00 every 2 months Blue Cross. It is disgusting... Our Hospital here in our little town is failing...... I cannot get subsidy for viagra.....why not? I tell you, If you want to trust a lawyer, fine,,,,,,, I trust a Dr. well over a lawyer.... A Lawyer wants, the percentage. The Dr. wants that too, but heals you! if he can. I know a lot..My brother was a lawyer....Hastings. He was working hard and Liability shut him down. Liability is hurting me too. I am a Contractor. Liability raises the cost of everything. jees. So, rant and rave. What is your argument anyway.. I trust Dr.s and not Lawyers... > >One of the largest problems in America is (mal practice) attorneys, and > >all [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > as if, 'if only they could dictate' the solutions everything would be > better. The cost of resolving disputes is built into the cost of American commerce and trade. This developed over a long period of time. It's part of the insurance trade. As a contractor, you think you don't need insurance. You don't like paying for it. But unfortunately you can't do business without it. The reason is that it reduces risks and evens out income flows so that normal trade and commerce is insulated from adverse and unexpected events. You can rant all you want about how much you hate lawyers but it won't solve any problems. Apparently you haven't needed a good lawyer in your life. If you had, and you were smart enuf to prepare yourself for that need, and smart enuf to find a good, effective lawyer, you wouldn't feel the sad way you do. You wouldn't be a good mentor to someone starting out in business because you don't understand it. You only understand what you do, and you don't want to take the time and effort to understand related areas of trade and commerce. "NYETT999" asked >Should I consult an attorney? I would ... on a contingency basis. BUT ... I presume this was a last-ditch attempt to prolong his life after the three mainstream treatments had failed. That may relieve the hospital of most of their liability even though they erred. I.P. I just had my 4th chemo treatment last week. This one really kicked my butt. Up till now I would be over the treatment in 4 days. This time it took 6. I'm being treated with Taxotere. My daughter-in-law, who works in cancer research, said the the chemicals are some what cumulative. Hopefully, this will be my last treatment for a while. If the PSA is < 10, they will discontinue the treatment until it starts back up. I don't understand why your fathers chemo was targeted for the bladder. Mine is put into a port in my chest which goes directly into the blood stream. >My dad was undergoing chemotherapy for his >prostate. About a month ago, he was on his last monthly [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >email address: NYETT999@hotmail.com My two cents, RP twelve years ago,my psa is undetectable.Last year I noticed blood in my urine.Dr took a bio and found cancer in the bladder lining. The treatment is a kind of chemo,because a chemical thats put in the bladder,held for two hours then peed out.It,s called CBG treatment cause thats the name of the chemicals. I was told last week,when I had my cysto,thats when the Dr.goes in the bladder with a long camera that shows you on a tv how your bladder looks inside.the cancer was gone.My next cysto is in six months. Check with the doctors again He could have been being treated for Bladder cancer not Prostate. Good Luck and keep reading Frank you must be right, the drug used in this patient was probably mitomycin, that can be resorbed and accumulate in the body occasionally.In your case it was BCG which is an immunestimulant from TBC bacteria. It has probably nothing to do with catheter displacement or prostate cancer > My two cents, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Good Luck and keep reading > Frank |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.