Comparing cancer treatments
Fifteen years ago, I
was on the receiving end of a cancer diagnosis, and it was the first day of
treatment with chemotherapy. Everything was predicated on my ability to
tolerate the gruelling onslaught on my body that was eventually delivered every
third week on a Monday for seven sessions.
By comparison,
between chemotherapy then and radiotherapy today, the latter seems more
tolerable though, just as exacting on your body. Chemotherapy was then necessary because, besides the obvious cancer lesions on one sole and the
emanating tumours on the other sole, there was a likelihood that cancer could
be in different parts of the body.
Rather than try to
determine all the localisations of the cancer, chemotherapy with its cytotoxic
ability to kill cancer and some healthy cells in the body seemed the best
option against radiotherapy. In the case of prostate cancer, this was still
contained and localised with the prostate gland and my options were between
prostatectomy or radical radiotherapy, and I opted for the latter.
Effects on the body
In terms of side
effects, chemotherapy knocked me out by the beginning of the third day, there
was no strength to do anything and that was also exacerbated by the inability
to keep food down so I had to be given anti-emetic medication. Within the first
five days after chemotherapy, I also had to be careful that no one had any
contact with my bodily fluids as it was toxic to healthy people.
I was not prepared
for the shock of being cordoned off in my section of the hospital ward and any
nurses who needed to draw blood had to take full hazardous materials (HAZMAT)
precautions when approaching me. That little piece of detail was not
communicated in our pre-treatment briefing.
While I believed I
would survive Kaposi’s sarcoma, I do not think I was thinking of fifteen years ahead
to reencounter cancer in my prostate gland. During the preview of options
for treatment, I did ask if chemotherapy could be a treatment option for the
prostate and the view was except in the case of metastasis, it was not a viable
option.
Experience or newness
I guess my thinking
was having tolerated chemotherapy well before, a second experience would not be
as bad. However, it would have left me less able to do the usual things with
the need for constant care and monitoring as I had back then in the
Netherlands.
I write this not to
celebrate cancer but out of gratitude and thankfulness that I have been
fortunate to survive cancer and tell stories of the triumph of humanity over
adverse events through medical intervention and so much more, the mercy and
grace of God.
References
Blog - Waiting for chemo
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are accepted if in context are polite and hopefully without expletives and should show a name, anonymous, would not do. Thanks.