20 replies to this topic

[bacopa]

Here is one article from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2...ayze/index.html

Of course this is tragic news, but he did smoke 3 packs a day purportedly. I am not saying that he deserved to die because of his smoking, of course. But no one can deny this was main cause of his cancer. How many more millions will have to die before people either stop smoking, never begin, or cigarettes and other tobacco products become outlawed?

Edited by dfowler, 15 September 2009 - 02:42 AM.

[niner]

Wow, 3 packs a day... that is a shitload of cigarettes. That's one every 15 minutes or less, assuming normal amounts of time for sleeping, eating, and bathing. 50% more than Bill smoked. Over six thousand dollars a year just for smokes. I don't know what the connection between smoking and pancreatic cancer is though. He was said to have a drinking problem, which might have been more causative. Well, we'll probably never know. The most important thing that I learned about him today is that he was one of the leads in the 1984 film 'Red Dawn'. He was 57; kind of a young pup...

[bacopa]

My doctor friend told me smoking plays a role in every cancer except two. I know it can cause stomach, lung, pancreatic, throat, mouth, esophageal, don't think breast, probably thyroid, and I'm sure many others. Drinking can play a role in throat cancer and the combination of smoking and drinking is a most deadly combo. Poor Patrick, I always liked the guy.

[tunt01]

Of course this is tragic news, but he did smoke 3 packs a day purportedly.

and continued to smoke after he was diagnosed with cancer. sorry, but i've no sympathy on this one.

[bacopa]

No offense Prophets, but clearly he was addicted and almost assuredly would have died had he not continued to smoke. I believe he just gave up in the end. I think whenever someone has a serious illness, especially terminal, we all should have sympathy. I enjoy your posts and certainly don't want to get into an argument about this.

[marco1910]

No offense Prophets, but clearly he was addicted and almost assuredly would have died had he not continued to smoke. I believe he just gave up in the end. I think whenever someone has a serious illness, especially terminal, we all should have sympathy. I enjoy your posts and certainly don't want to get into an argument about this.

what it shows is how terribly addictive nicotine is. I quit many years ago and it was the toughest thing I ever did..at the time there was a debate about whether nicotine was actually addictive...I really laughed at that one!

[Luna]

Isn't it the organ that produces insulin?
Couldn't they remove it and he would be like Type I diabetic?

[bacopa]

No offense Prophets, but clearly he was addicted and almost assuredly would have died had he not continued to smoke. I believe he just gave up in the end. I think whenever someone has a serious illness, especially terminal, we all should have sympathy. I enjoy your posts and certainly don't want to get into an argument about this.

what it shows is how terribly addictive nicotine is. I quit many years ago and it was the toughest thing I ever did..at the time there was a debate about whether nicotine was actually addictive...I really laughed at that one!

hey man i can relate. When I had serious depression and anhedonia along with bad cognitive problems I used cigarettes to make me feel better. This was after a terrible incident in my life. I used to bum in college and that probably led to me picking up the habit again. Then I got addicted and it became the only thing it seemed that would keep me alive. I hate that I spent those 3 1/2 years smoking, but I also know how horrible I felt and how much I craved them. Now I obsess over and over how I could have done that, but I did, but in my case my circumstances may have been rather extreme. Still I will never not have sympathy for even lifetime smokers. But we can't deny that they did it to themselves, but their knowledge of what they did to themselves must destroy them internally, and I'm sure they have horrific regrets over smoking so long. But yes it was irresponsible of them not to quit younger. It's a no win situation. The last thing people with cancer, from smoking so long need, are the myriad number of people saying, "I have no sympathy," "they did it to themselves," or "what fools." Talk about insult to injury.

But I quit a while ago, and now need to quit the nicotine gum as there are many studies linking it to mouth cancer. You can't win. But no matter how torturous I feel at times, I will never take a damn puff of a tobacco product again in my life. Just think, we pay thousands of dollars for our own demise.

Edited by dfowler, 15 September 2009 - 05:38 AM.

[tunt01]

i smoked for several years too. i also quit. it was definitely one of the hardest things i've ever done.

however, i've no sympathy for a guy who has tons of money, all the resources in the world to get help, and then continues to smoke after a cancer diagnosis. that guy can hire people to shadow him 24/7 to prevent him from smoking, and he didn't do it.

with all the people in need in this world, he doesn't get any sympathy from me. i don't consider him a fool. his death is unfortunate. it doesn't detract from his positive qualities and talent. i don't wish him death or ill will but i'll save my sympathy for those who I think really deserve it.

[Rational Madman]

i smoked for several years too. i also quit. it was definitely one of the hardest things i've ever done.

however, i've no sympathy for a guy who has tons of money, all the resources in the world to get help, and then continues to smoke after a cancer diagnosis. that guy can hire people to shadow him 24/7 to prevent him from smoking, and he didn't do it.

with all the people in need in this world, he doesn't get any sympathy from me. i don't consider him a fool. his death is unfortunate. it doesn't detract from his positive qualities and talent. i don't wish him death or ill will but i'll save my sympathy for those who I think really deserve it.

No matter the circumstances, the tragedy of the human condition almost always attracts my sympathy. But, then again, I wasn't deeply affected by the death of Patrick Swayze. After all, I'm still traumatized by some of his movies.

Edited by Rol82, 15 September 2009 - 05:50 AM.

[bacopa]

Well you're right in that he had all the resources to quit, plus he was physically and mentally well. So yes it positively shocks me that he didn't make more of an effort to quit, or at least decrease his consumption of cigarettes. But to have no sympathy, come on...I guess I'm from the school of thought that every human being who is a decent person, (and Swayze was), deserves the sympathy any dead or dying person should get. Swayze was by all means a nice, hard working, blah blah blah, you get my stupid point. I know you're not wishing him ill however. But he DID do it to himself.

[Ghostrider]

i smoked for several years too. i also quit. it was definitely one of the hardest things i've ever done.

however, i've no sympathy for a guy who has tons of money, all the resources in the world to get help, and then continues to smoke after a cancer diagnosis. that guy can hire people to shadow him 24/7 to prevent him from smoking, and he didn't do it.

with all the people in need in this world, he doesn't get any sympathy from me. i don't consider him a fool. his death is unfortunate. it doesn't detract from his positive qualities and talent. i don't wish him death or ill will but i'll save my sympathy for those who I think really deserve it.

I agree, although the tabloids were really harsh on him. I remember standing in line at Safeway Sunday night and reading the headline on one of the white trash newspapers. Said something like "Patrick goes home to die" all in big bold letters. How can that author sleep at night knowing that he or she is profiting off of someone else's misery?

[eternaltraveler]

Wow, 3 packs a day... that is a shitload of cigarettes. That's one every 15 minutes or less, assuming normal amounts of time for sleeping, eating, and bathing. 50% more than Bill smoked. Over six thousand dollars a year just for smokes. I don't know what the connection between smoking and pancreatic cancer is though. He was said to have a drinking problem, which might have been more causative. Well, we'll probably never know. The most important thing that I learned about him today is that he was one of the leads in the 1984 film 'Red Dawn'. He was 57; kind of a young pup...

Smoking is much more associated with pancreatic cancer than drinking is

[eternaltraveler]

i smoked for several years too. i also quit. it was definitely one of the hardest things i've ever done.

however, i've no sympathy for a guy who has tons of money, all the resources in the world to get help, and then continues to smoke after a cancer diagnosis. that guy can hire people to shadow him 24/7 to prevent him from smoking, and he didn't do it.

with all the people in need in this world, he doesn't get any sympathy from me. i don't consider him a fool. his death is unfortunate. it doesn't detract from his positive qualities and talent. i don't wish him death or ill will but i'll save my sympathy for those who I think really deserve it.

Just what the heck is the point is there in quitting smoking after a pancreatic cancer diagnosis (assuming adenocarcinoma)?

[Blue]

i smoked for several years too. i also quit. it was definitely one of the hardest things i've ever done.

however, i've no sympathy for a guy who has tons of money, all the resources in the world to get help, and then continues to smoke after a cancer diagnosis. that guy can hire people to shadow him 24/7 to prevent him from smoking, and he didn't do it.

with all the people in need in this world, he doesn't get any sympathy from me. i don't consider him a fool. his death is unfortunate. it doesn't detract from his positive qualities and talent. i don't wish him death or ill will but i'll save my sympathy for those who I think really deserve it.

Just what the heck is the point is there in quitting smoking after a pancreatic cancer diagnosis (assuming adenocarcinoma)?

Not much if the cancer has spread as almost always have. Then better to to enjoy life as much as possible if mentally accepting the inevitable outcome. But he made some statements to effect that he would defeat it. Then you should stop smoking. But maybe he tried and failed as so many others.

Another point is that is not necessarily true that something he did caused his cancer although this is very likely. But he may just have "won" the random, non-lifestyle, unjust cancer mutations lottery.

[eternaltraveler]

Smoking probably was the cause. But pancreatic cancer metastasizes like I vote (early and often ). If I was diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma I'd probably start smoking. May as well have a smoke on the green mile.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 15 September 2009 - 11:24 AM.

[Blue]

If I was diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma I'd probably start smoking. May as well have a smoke on the green mile.

Well, I would not if catching it so early that operation is possible. Regardless, many cancer patients do not accept the diagnosis initially. But if you think you can defeat it, correct or not, then stopping smoking should be part of your duties in order to improve overall body health and lessen the chance of a new cancer.

[Dmitri]

i smoked for several years too. i also quit. it was definitely one of the hardest things i've ever done.

however, i've no sympathy for a guy who has tons of money, all the resources in the world to get help, and then continues to smoke after a cancer diagnosis. that guy can hire people to shadow him 24/7 to prevent him from smoking, and he didn't do it.

with all the people in need in this world, he doesn't get any sympathy from me. i don't consider him a fool. his death is unfortunate. it doesn't detract from his positive qualities and talent. i don't wish him death or ill will but i'll save my sympathy for those who I think really deserve it.

Just what the heck is the point is there in quitting smoking after a pancreatic cancer diagnosis (assuming adenocarcinoma)?

That's true most people live 3-6 months after diagnoses and the 5 year survival rate for that cancer is 5%. However, from reports I had read they claimed that he was in the early stages, perhaps that's why he lived almost 2 years after the diagnosis?

[eternaltraveler]

I've familiarized myself slightly on his case. He survived for so long because he didn't have adenocarcinoma. He had a slightly more treatable rare form of pancreatic cancer.

[VictorBjoerk]

Even rich and famous people die like flies. That shows how primitive modern medicine still is ......

the slaughter of cancer is so immense world-wide, 70 million each year...., and it can't be attributed only on lifestyle, it's simple a fallacy in human biology...I hope the WILT strategy develops well..

[tunt01]

I've familiarized myself slightly on his case. He survived for so long because he didn't have adenocarcinoma. He had a slightly more treatable rare form of pancreatic cancer.

i thought initial reports were that it was treated and in remission. but he still continued to smoke. that's what i recall reading.