I was at HH's funeral on Sunday and learnt from P, another survivor, that HH had had chemo on Monday, 12 Oct. I did not know the name of the drug, and P thought is was Avastin, but by 14 Oct, Wed morning, she was gone.
When they found that the cancer had spread to her brain, the doctors had deliberated on their next course of action, i.e. where they should start treating her first.
Earlier on, before this last dose of chemo, I had learnt that there were already physical symptoms that her liver was running into problems - the colour of her urine, colour of her eyes and her bloated stomach. In her condition, I wonder why her onco went ahead with the chemo for her. Essentially, didn't that mean that the chemo killed her? Would her death be classified as 'death from cancer' or 'death from chemo'? Would the doctors or hospital even admit?
True, cancer kills too, but chemo kills faster.
HH had always been a model patient. She had faith in her doctors and she trusted them with her life. I recalled some months back when several of us were talking about the side effects of certain drugs, and I mentioned that if it could be proven that the side effects were caused by certain drugs, it would be sueable. HH was the first to speak out in defense of the doctors. I had meant the pharmaceutical company and not the doctors, but nobody was interested in knowing more and I let the matter rest.
Fleur, a breast cancer patient, who had been fighting a long battle, had also been treated with different drugs. From her blog, the last chemo drug that she was on, Ixempra, caused her much suffering. Not long after, she died from total liver failure. Before that, she was also having problems with her liver - bloated tummy and jaundice.
She mentioned that she was told (she did not mention where she got this info from) that if the liver could regenerate itself, she would be alright. I am no expert in this area, but I know enough to know that a liver damaged by chemo, if there is any chance of recovery, would take a long time, and with medication, but chemo has to be stopped. So, I don't understand how it is possible for the liver to 'regenerate itself', while she was still undergoing chemo. Likewise, with HH, was it cancer or chemo that killed her? Which category did she come under?
Chemo caused damage to the liver and kidneys, which is why before every dose, we had to have the liver function and renal function tests done. Chemo also wipes out the immune system leaving the body too weak to fight on its own.
How can doctors ignore all these signs and still go ahead with chemo? What did they hope to achieve? A miracle? When then would they consider that a patient has had enough? At the exhaustion of their funds or lives? Did they really have the patients' welfare at heart? Would they do this to themselves or even to their loved ones?
Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath that doctors had to take, or are they even continuing with the act of oath taking? And if they are, does not the oath taking mean something?
HH would not have liked me to write such a post, as she believed that the doctors are doing their best, even to the end.
For HH and Fleur, at least, they suffer no more.
No comments:
Post a Comment