PDA

View Full Version : Movember- shocking info and a question.


xperia
9th November 2015, 02:53 PM
Anyone not shaving their 'tache this month?

Personally I dislike moustaches (aesthetically) but as a Male Rights Activist (and anti-feminist) I cannot let it slide.

Some facts for you guys/gals:

Funding into female exclusive cancers (breast, ovarian, cervical, etc) is over THREE TIMES the money invested into male exclusive cancer (prostate, testicular etc)

Yet.. men are FAR more likely to die of prostate cancer than any woman is likely to die of breast cancer for example, a rate of more than ONE MAN per hour in the UK... DIES because of prostate cancer ALONE.

I am not shaving, to show my further support for equal rights for men in the fields of cancer and medical research.

Anyone doing the same? :)

al_kaholik
9th November 2015, 03:08 PM
Did this last year, and shaved my head back to bare skin for two different cancer charities.

Unfortunately my friend, for whom the head shave was conducted, sadly lost his battle to cancer a couple of weeks ago. This year its clean shaven and with a full head of hair to remember the way he liked to be :) No 'taches or black are the family wishes at the funeral!

xperia
9th November 2015, 03:26 PM
Sorry for the loss. Nice to see that his family's wishes are respected :) May I ask what cancer it was? :(

al_kaholik
9th November 2015, 03:41 PM
You can. It was Ewings Sarcoma but started in his foot moving through his leg. This was amputated and he was signed off after plenty of chemo to return to work. This sadly returned to his hip, where Sarcoma is commonly found before spreading.

Zuiko
9th November 2015, 04:13 PM
Did this last year, and shaved my head back to bare skin for two different cancer charities.

Unfortunately my friend, for whom the head shave was conducted, sadly lost his battle to cancer a couple of weeks ago. This year its clean shaven and with a full head of hair to remember the way he liked to be :) No 'taches or black are the family wishes at the funeral!

Sorry to hear this, a very sad time for you and his family.

Naughty Nigel
9th November 2015, 06:16 PM
Sorry to hear this Al. It must be a difficult time for all concerned.

I know nothing about the comparative spending onmen's and women's specific cancers, but I would not be surprised if your figures were correct.

I suspect it is all about marketing, publicity and the body parts concerned. There is hardly a day that goes by without breast cancer being mentioned on the wireless and/or television, (the latter accompanied by the obligatory library footage of a woman having a breast scan); but to be blunt about it, the locations of male specific cancers are probably much less likely to be discussed over the nation's dining tables than breasts.

Two other facts I have heard (that may or may not be true) are that a significant number of MEN suffer with breast cancer, (although few are aware of this fact), and that more men are raped than women, although one rarely hears such attacks reported by the media.

al_kaholik
9th November 2015, 06:26 PM
Let's not belittle the good work that cancer research in totality, research on cancer, not just the charity, does. Breast cancer was a big issue and killer, survival rates are far greater than they were before. Same goes for prostate cancer too. It's often that men are not reminded about checking, screening or just too bullish to often go to the doctors.

What has become clear to me in the last year meeting all the people on the care side is that they do an incredible and often heartbreaking job.

Naughty Nigel
9th November 2015, 06:42 PM
Let's not belittle the good work that cancer research in totality, research on cancer, not just the charity, does. Breast cancer was a big issue and killer, survival rates are far greater than they were before. Same goes for prostate cancer too. It's often that men are not reminded about checking, screening or just too bullish to often go to the doctors.

What has become clear to me in the last year meeting all the people on the care side is that they do an incredible and often heartbreaking job.

I wouldn't seek to belittle any such work, and I certainly don't resent the huge steps that have been taken in treating women's cancers in particular. Any advance in the treatment of specific cancers adds to the growing pool of information that will hopefully, one day, lead to the successful treatment of all cancers.

However, in reply to Xperia's original post, there is no doubt in my mind that, irrespective of gender, some medical conditions receive much more publicity (and hence funding) than others. It is as simple as that.


PS: I must apologise to al_kaholik as I misread one of Xperia's posts as his.

George Dorn
10th November 2015, 06:33 AM
I had a brief look on t'interweb and found that according to the ONS, their most recently published statistics for cancer show that in the UK, during 2008 - 2010 10,427 deaths occurred from prostate cancer while 11,757 occurred from breast cancer.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, then the percentage of US patients deceased within five years after diagnosis is breast cancer 10.8% and prostate cancer 0.8%.

OlyPaul
10th November 2015, 08:57 AM
What has become clear to me in the last year meeting all the people on the care side is that they do an incredible and often heartbreaking job.

As someone who has recieved cancer treatment rhis year and last year I can say these men and woman do a great job.

BUT in my own hospital I have seen the amount of people
recieving chemo double since last year and the chemo ward staff reduced,these wonderful men and woman are now working through there lunch breaks to cope and in some cases not eating till 4pm or not at all.

Anyone remember "the NHS is safe in our hands".

Naughty Nigel
10th November 2015, 10:19 AM
If Wikipedia is to be believed, then the percentage of US patients deceased within five years after diagnosis is breast cancer 10.8% and prostate cancer 0.8%.

This is probably because prostate cancer is often confined to the prostate itself. Non aggressive prostrate tumours are not considered life threatening for most men over about sixty years of age as long as they are monitored. (I believe it can take around 15 years for them to progress further.)

I understand that small tumours of the prostate can be treated with radiotherapy, but otherwise radical surgery is required to remove the whole prostate. This has significant effects on quality of life, so is very much a last resort.

So I'm afraid the comparison quoted is a little like comparing melons with doughnuts! ;)

al_kaholik
10th November 2015, 10:23 AM
Not just ward staff, its all of them. Get behind your junior doctors, because it'll be further pressure on the other roles soon and this will set a precedent.

Today my girlfriend will be doing a paediatric cardiac anaesthetic list - the last thing you want is these people working fatigued or hungry, but it happens.

xperia
10th November 2015, 12:44 PM
"The UK spends three times more on research into female cancers than male cancers according to a report by the charity Prostate Cancer UK.

The figures were revealed in a 'Cancer Funding League Table' of government and charitable research spend by cancer type which revealed that nearly 60m is spent on research into female cancers compared with the 19.7m that is spent on research in into male cancers."

http://www.helpingmen.co.uk/2013/02/cancer-inequality-3x-more-funding-for.html

Also, Nigel- read this for an idea.

In the UK in 2011 around 49,900 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, that’s more than 130 women every day. Around 350 men in the UK were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2011.

(http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer#heading-Zero)

The government involved does not have to conform to dinner table manners when it comes to donation of cancer research funding, that oh- breasts are more likely to be discussed. Then again breasts are just as "private" and taboo as male genitals are (try getting either out in front of a policeman...) so it doesnt really matter.

There is a disparity and it's sad to see it.

drmarkf
10th November 2015, 12:58 PM
I agree with the melons & doughnuts analogy: one of the problems with prostate cancer management is that there is much less good-quality evidence on how to diagnose it precisely, and how to treat it once you have diagnosed it.

Some of this is probably innate to the condition, but a lot more is because a lot less funding has been given to prostate cancer research than breast cancer research.

One particular consequence is that screening for prostate Ca actually involves some poor tests (e.g. the PSA test), where an isolated positive result is poorly predictive of you actually having prostate Ca (i.e. lots of false positives) and also what type of it you've got (i.e. even if you've got it, it's usually a fairly indolent form of cancer that won't kill or harm you - you're much more likely to die of something else).

So all this 'health screening' with PSA tests that's advocated by the private sector (strange, that...) is more likely to worry people and it certainly leads to some people having prostate biopsies and radical surgery un-necessarily. These are invasive procedures that carry significant risks (like septicaemia and death).

So, support prostate cancer charities, guys & gals, and don't have a PSA test unless you have relevant symptoms (when it **IS** the right thing to do).

The doctor is now out *chr

Naughty Nigel
10th November 2015, 01:05 PM
I agree with the melons & doughnuts analogy: one of the problems with prostate cancer management is that there is much less good-quality evidence on how to diagnose it precisely, and how to treat it once you have diagnosed it.

Some of this is probably innate to the condition, but a lot more is because a lot less funding has been given to prostate cancer research than breast cancer research.

One particular consequence is that screening for prostate Ca actually involves some poor tests (e.g. the PSA test), where an isolated positive result is poorly predictive of you actually having prostate Ca (i.e. lots of false positives) and also what type of it you've got (i.e. even if you've got it, it's usually a fairly indolent form of cancer that won't kill or harm you - you're much more likely to die of something else).

So all this 'health screening' with PSA tests that's advocated by the private sector (strange, that...) is more likely to worry people and it certainly leads to some people having prostate biopsies and radical surgery un-necessarily. These are invasive procedures that carry significant risks (like septicaemia and death).

So, support prostate cancer charities, guys & gals, and don't have a PSA test unless you have relevant symptoms (when it **IS** the right thing to do).

The doctor is now out *chr

Well, I am pleased that the Doc has confirmed my understanding of the subject is more or less right. :)

drmarkf
10th November 2015, 04:33 PM
Well, I am pleased that the Doc has confirmed my understanding of the subject is more or less right. :)

I should provide a disclaimer that I'm now retired from clinical practice, and not only was I not a urologist but I wasn't a GP either.

However, I do possess a prostate and I offer those comments based on up-to-date knowledge (including recent discussions with friends who are GPs and urologists, and with my own GP who also possesses a prostate and is around the same age as me) and in good faith, wanting my friends here to make the best decisions in life.

;)

(Actually, I recommend anyone who is concerned to discuss the issues with a male GP from their local NHS practice who is closest in age to them: that way you'll get the best and most sensitive and knowledgeable advice IMHO)

Ricoh
10th November 2015, 07:53 PM
It would have been most helpful if God had placed the prostate in a more accessible position, eg alongside the external bits and bobs. (Must speak to God when we meet, but not too soon, hopefully!)

As for the biopsy when the PSA hits the threshold, I'm told it's like an industrial stapler being inserted. Yikes!!

Naughty Nigel
10th November 2015, 10:00 PM
I should provide a disclaimer that I'm now retired from clinical practice, and not only was I not a urologist but I wasn't a GP either.

However, I do possess a prostate and I offer those comments based on up-to-date knowledge (including recent discussions with friends who are GPs and urologists, and with my own GP who also possesses a prostate and is around the same age as me) and in good faith, wanting my friends here to make the best decisions in life.

;)

(Actually, I recommend anyone who is concerned to discuss the issues with a male GP from their local NHS practice who is closest in age to them: that way you'll get the best and most sensitive and knowledgeable advice IMHO)

Thank you for your advice. I shall bear that in mind.

Unfortunately it is usually the Practice Gatekeeper who decides which GP one is assigned to, and despite enquiring in great detail about one's symptoms they don't always send you to the best clinician for the job. Perhaps if I attended more than once every five years or so I might become more adept at this!

Anyhow, being of a certain age and having 'certain symptoms' I made an appointment to see the GP for a check over at our local rural practice. I didn't recognise the doctor's name and it was only when I walked into the consulting room that I realised I had been assigned to an Asian lady who I had never met before.

I didn't have any problem with this but she clearly did, and refused to examine me until another member of staff could join us. She also refused a PSA test on the grounds that I had "wasted enough of her time already", and that I was "too young to worry about such things" (I wish) and basically sent me away with a flea in my ear!

As might be expected the symptoms didn't go away, but given this experience it took me a couple of years to pluck up the courage to go back. I was offered a PSA test on this occasion, which was reported to be about 13, whatever that means, and yes, the biopsy is uncomfortable, but not particularly painful.

I now have to go back for a 'targeted biopsy' to see if anything needs to be done, so I have that to look forward to next week. :rolleyes:

Ricoh
10th November 2015, 10:21 PM
I'm being monitored due to family history and the urologist I was sent to see (due to family track record) said as soon as it tops 4 it's biopsy time. Great!

When I had the rear passage check, I mentioned, in humour, 'that was nice for both of us' to which he responded 'well, we can't all be brain surgeons'. Priceless!