John Edwards and his Wife's Cancer

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=cerberus]
The issue with the rib finding isn’t so much the rib mass itself, but that the cancer had time to spread that far and accumulate mass to become detectable. It is quite likely at this time that there are other metastatic colonies in other organs and sites, and it is difficult to manage these unknown cancers properly.

There are medications such as Taxol and the like, there are clinical trials, there are things like the gamma knife/cyber knife for focused, minimally-invasive radiotherapy.

Survival is likely until a sufficiently significant mass develops in an important site such as the brain, kidney, liver or lung. Then all bets are off and it gets rather ugly.

Cancer sucks, metastasis sucks harder.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently based on how the Edwards described the treatment in the news conference, the medical people I’ve heard on the news programs say this this cancer might very well become a chronic disease, sort of like diabetes. Life expetency will be reduced but the individual can live a more or less normal life.

62

The real question is how long can it be managed. Almost certainly it can be managed through the next presidential election - unless something takes a turn. She may have three or four years, she may have ten or more. And that depends on what the receptors are like.

Metastatic cancer sort of like AIDS - chances are good it will kill you sooner or later (unless you get hit by a truck or something else happens - you don’t get to die of old age), but with proper management and a good dose of luck, it doesn’t have to be sooner.

63

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
A hearty Amen to that! (It’s GD; I can be religious ;)) I’m befuddled by the odd shaking-out of people on this issue, but I think these two gentlemen deserve a lot of commendation for not allowing politics to overcome human decency. Thanks, guys! :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Well, thanks, but -

I may be Republican, but at least I’m potty-trained.

Neither is Mrs. Edwards.

Regards,
Shodan

64

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I may be Republican, but at least I’m potty-trained.
[/QUOTE]

In any case, I appreciate it.

Daniel

65

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]
This just in: John Edwards’ wife’s cancer is back – she now has stage 4 metastatic breast cancer — and yet Edwards is saying he plans to soldier on with his campaign. It’s his call, obviously, but it seems to me that he would have been wiser to face the inevitable and call the campaign off.

So what’s the consensus? Is he right or is he wrong, and what effect will it have on his campaign, or on his chances?
[/QUOTE]

Statistically speaking, Mrs Edwards will be dead before Mr Edwards finishes a first term. The question to ask her oncologist is not “How will she do?” but “How have your patients with Stage IV breast cancer done, on average?”

We aren’t usually that blunt with individual patients, and the press reporting noble fights against “chronic” (sic) illnesses such as Stage IV breast cancer tends to emphasize every optimistic statement instead of the stark reality of broad averages.

How the Edwards should spend that time should be entirely their choice, except that he is running for public office which requires a certain time commitment (assuming he’s elected). The problem is not that Mrs Edwards will probably die of this disease within 6 years. The problem is that it will (again, statistically) be a lingering, gradual demise with a number of complications, setbacks, successes and so on.

Mr Edwards will need to make a choice in how much time he has to devote to the Presidency, and how much time he wants to devote to a dying wife. The public will have to make a choice about whether or not to vote for a man who is going to have to make that choice. It’s easy now to make the decision that it’s more noble to serve the country but it will be more difficult when she develops an incapacitating setback and you are forced to choose between the time you have together and the absolute need of the Nation for you personally to be President.

It’s unfair, in a way, to know the facts in advance. Anyone already in office might have to deal with an unexpected terminal illness, and we wouldn’t automatically assume they should resign. Electing someone with a very high a priori probability they will have to deal with it is another thing altogether.

Give them time to digest all this. They will eventually be psychologically ready to deal with the statistics. I do not think Mr Edwards will choose to continue his campaign at that point.

Such a horrible thing.

66

I find the comparison to Diabetes somewhat crude and offensive. I can’t think of any diabetic therapeutics that are even remotely as destructive as oncotherapeutics.

There is a distinction to be made between cases whose initial diagnoses are at Stage IV versus those who are initially diagnosed with Stage I/II with recurrence at Stage III/IV. The people whose initial dx is at I/II with recurrence are allegedly in for more time than those who are initially dx’ed at III/IV.

In reality, it’s a crap shoot, and the Edwards are in for a rough ride. It may well be that in the future Breast Cancer will have a chronic profile similar to that of, say, slow Prostate cancer, but at present, Stage IV breast cancer is a death sentence - the appeals process may take 5 or more years, but the prognosis is grim, and quality of life falls drastically when major organs(Brain, Lung, Kidney) are hit by secondary masses.

Her best hope is some sort of Gleevec type response to an antiangiogenic or anti-growth-receptor type system-wide medication. But not every Stage IV patient gets to be a Lance Armstrong /Gleevec lucky bastard. Most Stage IV patients, including the early I/II - recurring III/IV patients, die. It’s a matter of time.

“Stage IV Cancer is Just Like Diabetes!” my ass. :rolleyes: Maybe when that Star Trek type future medicine kicks in, but for now, crap.

67

[QUOTE=cerberus]
.

<snip>

There is a distinction to be made between cases whose initial diagnoses are at Stage IV versus those who are initially diagnosed with Stage I/II with recurrence at Stage III/IV. The people whose initial dx is at I/II with recurrence are allegedly in for more time than those who are initially dx’ed at III/IV.

<snip>

“Stage IV Cancer is Just Like Diabetes!” my ass. :rolleyes: Maybe when that Star Trek type future medicine kicks in, but for now, crap.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with your umbrage at the notion that this is a sort of chronic illness that needs to “managed” as if it were hypertension or diabetes. Oncologists have spinmeister talents that make political press agents seem like amateurs, and unfortunately the press (and the rest of us) want to believe.

IANAn Oncologist but early recurrence w/bone mets after aggressive initial treatment is not a good prognostic indicator. You can bet the farm the rib fracture was pathologic absent a history of significant trauma. So she has multiple bone mets, new CXR lesions…reading between the lines of well-intentioned optimism, it’s bad, with widespread systemic disease recurring early despite a lumpectomy, chemo and RT.

This is not an “Oh; pardon me while I take the afternoon off for my wife’s treatment” kind of illness. This will be a no-holds-barred time-consuming daily battle, intermittently overwhelming for extended periods of time.

68

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Seriously, put yourself in her place. Wouldn’t you want to see the family you love happy and fulfilled before you left the planet? My mom died once I was married, my dad when he knew I had a fellow. I have a friend whose mom died knowing my friend had found a lovely man.

Surely the last thing you’d want would be for your family to give up their dreams and all of you go hide out at home and wait for you to croak? Geeze. You’d be fighting like a mofo, I’m guessing, and wanting to see as many dreams as possible come true for your family while you’re still around.

At least I’d hope so.
[/QUOTE]

I think this is a great response here.

How depressing is it to go out in misery? Life is about continuing to challenge yourself and not resting on your laurels. I think that Elisabeth wants nothing more than to see her husband become president before she dies. Not to mention the guilt of hurting his future. It’s a difficult thing to go through, but I’m sure she wants it badly for him. Also, I think they are both hoping that she will hang on to see that. It’s not about that it is essential for America. I’m sure the Edwards would agree that Obama would make a fine president, but that doesn’t make it better. It’s like having a son that is in love with a woman. You get to know her and she’s great and you’d be happy if they got married. If she breaks up with your son, and you marries another fine guy, it will make you slightly happy that she’s with a nice guy, but it won’t make things much better.

You’ve all heard the age-old question. What if you had 6 months to live, what would you do? We all have a long list of things we’ve always dreamed about doing our entire lives and would try to fit them in. What better dream than to have your husband elected president? If you had 6 months to live would you just sit around and wait to die? Even if you want to up the fight against cancer, the best way to do it is in the position of the most powerful man in the world.

69

[QUOTE=John Corrado]
And really, I doubt this has any reflection on whether Edwards thinks he can “do good for the nation”. If he actually cared about doing good, he’d still be in the Senate,
[/QUOTE]
Not that he was ever really in it.

70

Silly boy, running for VP instead, knowing there was no real chance he’d actually win against the Bush juggernaut and thereby be in a position to “do good” there. I can’t think of anyting that could be more selfish and hypocritical, can you? :dubious:

71

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Silly boy, running for VP instead, knowing there was no real chance he’d actually win against the Bush juggernaut and thereby be in a position to “do good” there. I can’t think of anyting that could be more selfish and hypocritical, can you? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
No. Running for the Senate as a stepping stone to higher office, and effectively serving only three years of a six year term is hypocritical. Or outright lying.

He ran for VP *after *he ran for President, IIRC.

72

So where *do * you think we should get our P/VP candidates from, then?

The concepts you’re advancing that (A) there should be a terminal level of advancement for a representative pol, and (B) it’s the Senate, and therefore that © no Senator should therefore run for the White House are quite novel indeed. Where do you derive them from?

73

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
So where *do * you think we should get our P/VP candidates from, then?

The concepts you’re advancing that (A) there should be a terminal level of advancement for a representative pol, and (B) it’s the Senate, and therefore that (C) no Senator should therefore run for the White House are quite novel indeed. Where do *you *derive them from?
[/QUOTE]
Where do *you *derive them from? I said nothing of the sort.

74

Then kindly expound on your objection to his leaving the Senate to run for VP. What was “hypocritical or outright lying” about it?

75

My objection is to Edwards’ campaigning for president halfway through his first term, essentially abandoning his duties as Senator. NC had had two Republican senators for fucking ever, and as soon as a Democrat wins an election, he bails to further his political ambition. I understand that if a senator is to run, he must usually leave during a term in office, but to quit before your first term is over? That’s bullshit. He lied to the people of NC, and he lied to me, who voted for him. He’s a scumbag who has a lot of people fooled. You included, apparently.

76

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
My objection is to Edwards’ campaigning for president halfway through his first term, essentially abandoning his duties as Senator. NC had had two Republican senators for fucking ever, and as soon as a Democrat wins an election, he bails to further his political ambition. I understand that if a senator is to run, he must usually leave during a term in office, but to quit before your first term is over? That’s bullshit. He lied to the people of NC, and he lied to me, who voted for him. He’s a scumbag who has a lot of people fooled. You included, apparently.
[/QUOTE]

Tempest in a teapot. What you’re saying is that nobody currently in office ought run for President. Ridiculous.

If you’re the sort that is going to go all sulky and pouty if your representative decides to run for higher office, then don’t vote for anyone in an election that immediately precedes another election for higher offices and then you’ll not be all disappointed like that.

77

What lie did he tell? What belief did he say he held about holding office that he violated?

Would you really rather have a Dem Senator in a cut-off minority than a Dem Pres/VP? Really?

You haven’t supported a damn thing yet.

78

To be as fair as possible to both Edwards and Contrapuntal, I moved here in 1998, just as Edwards began to be known as somebody other than “Who’s that?” He came out of the private sector to challenge Lauch Faircloth, a Republican whose chief allegiance seemed to be to big business, with enough of a nod to “Jessecrats” to give him some party support.

Edwards carved a niche as a moderate liberal Democrat, neither the liberal extremist who would forfeit traditionalist Southern Democrat support nor the milktoast middle of the road man whose partisan affiliation you’d have to look up (and of course not a DINO).

However, while his record was passable from a liberal-to-moderate perspective, it early became evident that while his stances on issues were fine, his motivation was less to run as an issues candidate than pure ambition. And in the fragmented field that emerged as prospective challengers to Mr. Bush in 2004, his star kept rising. And he became the perfect ticket-balancing running mate for Sen. Kerry.

Now, notice the dates – he ran for a six-year term in 1998. He was due to come up for reelection in 2004 – and instead he chose to accept the nomination for the Vice Presidency.

He certainly junketed a lot in 2002 and 2003 – but how much of this was purely political, getting his name before prospective primary voters, how much doing his job as a U.S. Senator with national responsibilities, and how much was a combination of the two (and in what proportions) is strongly debatable. From late 2003 through the primary season, he was effectively a candidate for President, showing up for votes and having his office handle constituent relations, but hardly a “working Senator.”

That, however, is true for almost any candidate for President, even incumbents, and to a lesser degree for candidates for Senator, Governor, etc. They need to balance their time between their present office and the one they aspire to – and no matter what balance they achieve, they’re subject to criticisms that they did not do enough at either present office or candidacy, sometimes both.

I’m not overly impressed with our ex-Senator, but I think Contrapuntal, while he has a quite valid case, overstates it by a fair margin.

79

[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster]
Tempest in a teapot. What you’re saying is that nobody currently in office ought run for President. Ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
You are quite wrong about that, and I will thank you to keep your confused mutterings about what kind of person I am to yourself.

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
What lie did he tell? What belief did he say he held about holding office that he violated?
[/QUOTE]
He said, not once, but over and over, that he would work hard in the Senate for the next six years for the people of North Carolina.

80

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
You are quite wrong about that, and I will thank you to keep your confused mutterings about what kind of person I am to yourself.

[/QUOTE]

Read for comprehension, please. I said nothing about ‘what kind of person you are’. :rolleyes: