When is a life-threatening disease not worth treating?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by S.A.M., Oct 23, 2008.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    When your life expectancy is ten years or less. Or so say the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force:

    From the guidelines

    What do you think of this? Is it appropriate to set limits on screening for a life-threatening disease based on expected life expectancy?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    What do I think of this? Neat!
    Is it appropriate? Yes.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    No. That is because people live to different ages so that if they find the cancer at say age 78 the person could live to be 105 or older if they remove the cancer in time. If they don't that person could die within say 5 or 10 years if not treated.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    If you are going to die within the next few hours or days, then I would say it isn't worth treating, but other than that I would seek treatment until I actually died. Especially if I really wanted to continue living.
  8. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    I'd say when it pisses all over your quality of life. For example I would rather be dead than tetraplegic. But other than that I would want treatment even if there was only a slight chance of surviving.

Share This Page