Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:20 am    Post subject: CANCER Reply with quote

I mentioned this idea a long time ago just quickly but I think it deserves a thread of its own. Cancer strikes 1 in 3 people in Canada. In a family of 3, either the mother, father or son/daugter will get Cancer. That's a pretty scary thought.

I believe that it is time to put forth policy for a MAJOR effort to put the brakes on this terrible disease.

As it stands, Cancer is lumped together with "health care" in general. I think that it is time to break "Cancer" away from "helth care" and put forth policy to aggressively address this issue.

- More money for research
- Build more research facilities and keep intelligent Canadians HERE in Canada to do research instead of moving to the well-funded US to get better pay and state of the art resources.
- Treatment: We must build world renowned treatment facilities in every city, separate from the regular hospital systems with their complex beurocratic management and money allocation. Eventually "partially" privatize one wing of each building.
- These facilities should all have MRI's and other needed imaging equipment, doctors for SPEEDY detection, biopsies, pathology labs for SPEEDY diagnosis and a fast-track to surgery, chemo, and radiation.

ALL SELF-CONTAINED AND FAST. SEPARATE FROM THE HOSPITAL SYSTEMS.

The current systems in hospitals would remain public and these facilities would largely be public with ONE WING private (eventually expanding to COMPLETELY PRIVATE) and keep the hospital system public. In Canada, that's the only way it would fly (gradual privatization).

AGGRESSIVE CANCER POLICY, SEPARATE FROM "HEALTH CARE".

We need it now. All Canadians have been touched by Cancer in one way or another.

Let's become world leaders in Cancer RESARCH and TREATMENT. Don't let patients die waiting in line for an MRI, a biopsy, backlogged pathology labs, backlogged, chemo lines, backlogged radiation treatment.

A wait times guarantee is nice but lets take it a LEAP further.
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny. I just wrote this thread and I find THIS: http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/276339

Jump on it Clement. This is serious. I live close to Port Hope.
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow.... no responses on a thread like this...

So it seems as though nobody cares. Sad really.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TorontoCon wrote:
Wow.... no responses on a thread like this...

So it seems as though nobody cares. Sad really.


It is a stretch to assume that "nobody cares" just because nobody has a response.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It does beg the question though - if all diseases are "cured" by drugs then aren't our genes getting weaker over time? Aren't we setting ourselves up for a genetic disaster?

Isn't evolution the best cure?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
It is a stretch to assume that "nobody cares" just because nobody has a response.

Exactly. I didn't quite know how to reply and I wanted to give it some thought.

I'm all for finding a cure but I also realize cancer isn't monolithic. If the government starts throwing resources at one type of cancer, researchers in other types will make noise and pretty soon, cancer will be the next global crisis with every scientist who wants funding adding "cure for cancer" to their research proposals.

-Mac
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
I'm all for finding a cure but I also realize cancer isn't monolithic. If the government starts throwing resources at one type of cancer, researchers in other types will make noise and pretty soon, cancer will be the next global crisis with every scientist who wants funding adding "cure for cancer" to their research proposals.


Very true. Breast cancer is the best funded of all cancers yet it has one of the lowest death rates (15%). Why not focus on the real killers (liver, lung, colon, blood). Lung is the black sheep of the family because most people bring it on themselves with smoking. I guess liver is the same way because of alcohol. I suppose you could argue that colon is too because of poor diet. My wife is a doctor and treats cancer patients with radiation. The hardest part of her job is TBI on little children (even babies). Cancer really sucks. Tough to even think about it.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Tough to even think about it.

Yup. My father-in-law died of prostate cancer which spread up his spine. Watching him suffer and ultimately pass away nearly drove my wife into a breakdown. She was only 24 when he died.

Ironic twist, we're now friends with a professor/research doctor who is studying prostate cancer. We didn't meet until after my wife's dad passed...

-Mac
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I apologise if I offended anyone.

I just think that the current setup is really poor. Canadian researchers have a great track record of success despite lack of funding compared to the US. I think that we would be world leaders in research if we just invested in ourselves a bit. Too many Ph.D's and MD's are moving to the states, away from their families and friends in order to find the funding to do this much needed research.

And beyond research, current treatment CAN be better if it is streamlined so patients don't have to go to one place for an MRI, another for a biopsy, wait for that biopsy to be sent to ANOTHER facility for pathology, then stand in line waiting for chemotherapy and radiation therapy. It's all so dis-jointed and inefficient.

Everyone has a Cancer story. Some very close to home. This awful disease is not going away any time soon and it is a tremendous strain on our current healthcare system. On humanitarian grounds, we simply must give the option for private treatment to those that can afford it.

It will free up and SHORTEN the lines in the public system and everyone benefits. Thankfully, cancer hasn't touched my family yet but when it does (out of my parents, my sister, my fiance and myself, ONE of us at least will develop cancer in our lifetimes), I want a better system in place. I would not be able to afford private care but I want shorter lines and a more efficient system in the public system.
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd also like to add that we need a serious review of the food we eat, the air we breathe, the water we drink and the materials we package our food in, and the toys our children play with.

Cancer has a strong environmental component to it (cancer causing agents) and our bodies are just filled with these toxins. Most of us have no idea what the sources of these carcinogens are.

Air fresheners, detergents, plastics, teflon, food preservatives/additives, pesticides, soil contamination (see above link), the list goes on and on. It's no wonder cancer rates are going up and up.

I'd personally like our government to spend money on addressing THESE environmental /health issues more than carbon capping.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TorontoCon wrote:
I'd personally like our government to spend money on addressing THESE environmental /health issues more than carbon capping.

I'd personally like our government to stop spending our money on issues which individuals can address by themselves. Stop looking to governments for solutions! Hasn't the nanny state grown enough already?

No-one forces you to buy or use air fresheners, detergents, plastics, teflon, or food preservatives/additives. Pesticides and soil contamination are a bit more involved but there are many organic farms and, if there was economic pressure for organic goods, there would be more organic farmers. Each and every time governments try to regulate change, it causes more problems than it solves and it costs taxpayers billions!!

-Mac
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem is that the majority of Canadians don't know they are using or consuming goods that can harm them. I'm pretty sure that all the parents that bought toys for their kids or use plastic baby bottles didn't knowingly try to harm their own children (referring of course to the cancer causing agents therein)...

Regulation is part of the government's job. Conservative or otherwise. Both provincially and federally.

And I'd have to argue that investment in education on these issues as well as better regulation of carcinogens in our products is a MUCH smaller investment than what Cancer ITSELF costs taxpayers in Canada.

Prevention is key to reducing these high costs to both our wallets and more importantly (don't forget), our HEALTH and LIVES.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TorontoCon wrote:
The problem is that the majority of Canadians don't know they are using or consuming goods that can harm them.

I'm not so idealistic as you. Life is about making choices. Choosing NOT to educate yourself about what you consume is still a choice. In many cases, Canadians deliberately choose products which they know to be harmful. How is that the government's responsibility?

TorontoCon wrote:
I'm pretty sure that all the parents that bought toys for their kids or use plastic baby bottles didn't knowingly try to harm their own children (referring of course to the cancer causing agents therein)...

Again, I'm not so idealistic as you. Plastic bottle are cheap and we all know plastics aren't as chemically stable as glass but plastic is cheap and reasonably unbreakable. That's why people buy it. The possible carcinogen effects are ignored for the convenience.

TorontoCon wrote:
Regulation is part of the government's job. Conservative or otherwise. Both provincially and federally.

Regulation, yes. Nanny state, no. The constant pressure to push government jurisdiction further and further into the lives of citizens must be resisted at all costs or else we will lose our liberty.

TorontoCon wrote:
And I'd have to argue that investment in education on these issues as well as better regulation of carcinogens in our products is a MUCH smaller investment than what Cancer ITSELF costs taxpayers in Canada.

Without meaning any disrespect, I suspect you're being a bit naive. Companies aren't knowingly producing carcinogens trying to trick consumers. Their goal is to manufacture products which are profitable. They try to balance cost with quality and create items which sell well and don't cause problems. Where they get into trouble is when they send the manufacturing overseas to save money on labour costs since they lose control over the quality control processes.

I would argue it is rarely governments who discover product flaws or dangers. It is consumers and consumer protection groups like the CSA, the ULA and others. Once the danger is exposed, it is not the government who publicizes it, it is the media. So realistically, all the government does is spend money to confirm what is already known... and regulation becomes a moot point since economic power and the courts can just as easily resolve the concern.

TorontoCon wrote:
Prevention is key to reducing these high costs to both our wallets and more importantly (don't forget), our HEALTH and LIVES.

When prevention becomes the responsibility of the government as opposed to the responsibility of the individual, the nanny state has arrived. Why use is your health if you don't have liberty? I'm sure most zoo animals are healthy.

-Mac
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
My wife is a doctor and treats cancer patients with radiation. The hardest part of her job

Wow, your wife has a Ph.D. in physics and is a medical doctor? Pretty impressive :D
mltoryblue





Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 109
Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The biggest problem with cancer in this country is the way research money is spent.

I was at a toxic chemicals seminar a few years back and the key speaker said that 9 out 10 dollars is spent on the anti smoking capaign. We've known for years smoking causes cancer and yet we spend 10's of millions of dollars each year on advertising.

We spend all of this money to fight smoking when the money should be going to find out what everyday chemicals lead to cancer, or better ways to treat cancer.

I find it so incredible that our governemt will sell a product which brings in lots of tax dollars than go spend those dollars to advertise to people not to by that product, or to send investigators around to make sure people aren't using those products in public places.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


CANCER

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB