But considering the extreme reactions that chemo often triggers, why would any cancer specialist prescribe this therapy for a patient whose cancer does not respond to chemo?
The disturbing answer to that question is enough to make us reevaluate the central role that chemo plays in cancer treatment.
Chemotherapy has become such a standard of cancer care that virtually all prescriptions for it are covered by insurance or Medicare, so the markups are generally not paid for by patients. The oncologists say they require the additional revenue from selling the drugs to offset the cost of special facilities and staff to administer the drugs. At face value, this would seem to be reasonable. But I’m sure you won’t be surprised to find out there’s much more to it than that.
PROBLEM 1: Taxpayers are footing a large portion of the payout that goes to oncologists.
According to the New York Times, some estimates put the amount that the government pays at more than $1 billion per year. That’s $1 billion more than the actual cost of the drugs. This amount doesn’t include the additional totals paid to doctors by insurance companies – totals for which there are no current estimates, although the chance is very good that the burden carried by insurance companies is at least equal to the amount carried by Medicare. And as we’ve seen so often in the past, when insurance claims rise, our insurance premiums follow with an upward trend that seems to have no ceiling.
The Times quotes Dr. Larry Norton, an oncologist and former president of the American society of Clinical Oncology, as saying that he and other doctors are just trying to “break even.” Well, things are tough all over, but don’t pass the hat just yet to help your local oncologist squeak by, because according the Medical Group Management Association, over the last ten years oncology has become one of the most lucrative fields of medical practice, largely due to the chemotherapy concession. By some estimates, two-thirds of a typical oncologist’s total revenue comes from the concession.
Natural Health Line recently interviewed Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. – a well-known clinical researcher who has treated cancer with nutrition for many years. Dr. Gonzalez is currently recruiting patients for a federally funded study of a cancer treatment based on a nutrition regimen. Complicating recruitment is the fact that many oncologists are reluctant to refer patients and lose the revenue that the chemotherapy concession would bring.
Two years ago, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D. (an oncologist and bioethicist), presented the results of a study that examined the medical records of almost 8,000 cancer patients. Dr. Emanuel found that in cases where chemotherapy was administered in the last six months of life, one-third of the patients suffered from cancers that are KNOWN TO BE UNRESPONSIVE TO CHEMOTHERAPY!
In Dr. Emanuel’s words, “providing chemotherapy to patients with unresponsive cancers is hard to justify.”
Dr. Emanuel used impressive restraint in describing a situation that is deplorable at best, but verges on criminally unethical at worst. It’s bad enough to succumb to cancer without also having to endure an abrasive therapy that is virtually guaranteed to have no chance of success – all of this completely without the patient’s knowledge, of course.
If you or someone you care for has been prescribed chemotherapy, there are two important questions that should be asked of every oncologist: 1) Is this cancer known to be unresponsive to chemotherapy? 2) Is the disease so advanced that chemotherapy would have very little chance of arresting the cancer?
Beyond these two essential questions I would also ask: Is there a better way than chemo? By any standard, poisoning the body to help it live is a desperate measure, but undeniably this method has extended the lives of millions. So as harsh as it is, I would never question anyone’s personal decision to choose this therapy. But for some, there are better ways to treat cancer.
I’m currently reading a remarkable book titled “Living Proof” by cancer survivor Michael Gearin-Tosh who was diagnosed with bone cancer more than ten years ago. He was told by several oncologists that his only chance of surviving even one or two years (at most) was to undergo an intensive round of chemotherapy. He refused, choosing instead a nutritional regimen, and he’s alive today. In an upcoming e-Alert I’ll have a full report of “Living Proof,” a book that provides a ray of hope for anyone who is willing to wage a fight against cancer on the road less traveled.
To Your Good Health,Jenny Thompson
Health Sciences InstituteSources:
“Chemo Versus Nutritional Therapies: Is a Conflict of Interest Compromising Fair Evaluation of Alternative Cancer Treatments?” Peter Chowka, Natural Health Line, naturalhealthline.com, 3/1/03
“Oral Presentation by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D.” Abstract #953, American Society of Clinical Oncology, 5/12/01
“Drug Sales Bring Huge Profits, and Scrutiny, to Cancer Doctors” Reed Abelson, The New York Times, 1/26/03
