Bingo!

Regards,

Steve J

"Do not compute the totality of your poultry population until all the
manifestations of incubation have been entirely completed."
-- William Jennings Bryan, American lawyer & politician

Dear Steve,

Well, it amazes me that people still use the word **"biochemical
failure"**.  It's an ugly word. And it affects how the patient feels.
When we got J's positive PSA results, I was so depressed because the
word "failure" kept on going round and round in my mind.  I don't like
to fail at anything, So I was upset that we had "failed" prostate
cancer.

"Recurrence" on the other hand, is a good word.  It sounds like an old
friend has come back to stay with you.

And what do they call death if recurrence is "biochemical failure"?

"Biochemical catastrophe", maybe?.  "Biological Armaggedon"?

Seriously, the "language of cancer" is a major issue that I've been
thinking about a lot and it deserves some serious attention.  For one
thing, language affects the way a patient feels about himself.  A
writer named Susan Sontag, who struggled with ca for years, wrote a
book called "Ilness as a metaphor", which described how cancer has
been demonized, in part because of the language associated with it.

We would all be better off we we called cancer a "neoplasm", because
that's the scientific name for it.  Doesn't it make you feel better to
think that you have a neoplasm rather than a cancer?  And "malignant"
has to go.  It implies that something evil resides within your body,
and that you might somehow be responsible for it.  This is atrocious.
There are plenty of worse diseases than ca, but people still dread it
more than others.  Why? I believe this is partly because all sorts of
terrible things have come to be associated with it.  And this is
something that can be changed.

For example, In general parlance, we refer to something evil or
noxious as a "cancer" that needs to be excised or uprooted.  So of
course people think of cancer as an "evil" disease, worse than any
other.  But this of course is not true.  It's all in the head.

I would like to write something serious about this subject, not like
I'm doing now on the fly.  I believe the terms we use to describe ca
makes us feel bad, when we need not.  It becomes a very personal
issue.  Very unfair.  This doesn't happen with other diseases, except
maybe AIDS.

Also, Bob C. brought up an important issue about attitude.  It's the
patient's choice whether they want to "cancerize" their life or not.
The NYT critic, Anatole Broyard, had PC, and I think he wrote a book
about his relationship with the ca.   He wasn't going to let it
dominate him and ruin his life.

What really struck me about the language of cancer was reading a long
article about how tumors use every trick of evolution to outwit us.
But it also described ca as a "neoplasm", not a "Beast", and I saw it
for what it is: a pathetic bunch of damaged cells that are just trying
to do what we all want to do: survive.  And the only thing around for
them to eat is us!  The article described the relationship between the
"host" and the ca alternatively as "parasitic" and "a mutual
association".  Now doesn't the latter sound better?

And the best part is:  If the ca kills you, it kills itself. And
leaves no fond memories.

Compare our lives with the lives of these cancer cells, which are just
mindlessly reproducing, (asexually) while we are having a good time on
earth.

I must tell you, and I know a lot of people won't like it, that after
reading the above article, "Cancer as an Evolutionary and Ecological
Process", (Lauren, et al., avail. on Medscape),  I could no longer
view cancer as the "Beast".  It seemed ridiculous to be waging war
with a bunch of clones.  And the cancer is not evil, it's neutral, and
it really has no control over it's life.  For example, a stem cell may
turn into a cancer or a sperm cell.  (Something like that.)  It's not
a choice between good and evil, it's just a biological imperative.

If you want to blame somebody for your ca, try your ancestors.  They
probably gave you these mutated genes.  Or carcinogens in the
environment.  The government, maybe, for allowing all that pollution.
Or you can vent at the medical professionals, many of them whom well
deserve it.  But this mindless bunch of damaged cells who are just
following the rules of evolutionary biology, it's hard to even
consider them evil.

Anyway, since I have read this article, my attitude toward ca has
changed.  I no longer regard it as an evil enemy.  **And that makes me
feel a a lot better.**  It's more like fate has brought the two of us
together, for better or for worse.  And, although, we have made
progress in destroying our unwanted "companions", we still have a long
way to go before we can rid ourselves of these "guests".

Anyway, you folks already think I'm crazy, so in a sense I could "do
no harm" by writing this.  But I think you would do well to think
about it.

Best to you all,

Leah