3 ms·

Those people (or their insurance) are willing to pay for treatment. If the market is there, why not fund some new research into treating lung cancer? Not every

by moftz 8y ago

Those people (or their insurance) are willing to pay for treatment. If the market is there, why not fund some new research into treating lung cancer? Not every incidence of lung cancer is from smoking two packs a day, sometimes it just happens although its more rare. It's the idiots smoking two packs a day that are helping subsidize the research that can help save the person who just gets lung cancer randomly. I think it's a hard choice between allowing for personal freedoms and improving society for the better by outlawing dangerous drugs like smoking and alcohol. I think there can be a balance by allowing everyone the same level of access to healthcare but increasing taxes on dangerous recreational drugs to subsidize the healthcare system. You can eat fast food and smoke all you want but it's going to cost you heavily financially.

nradov 8y ago
Unlike some other forms of cancer, random lung cancer is exceedingly rare. The vast majority of lung cancer patients were smokers. As a society we have limited resources for healthcare. So it's worth considering whether we might achieve better net results by shifting some resources from lung cancer treatment to smoking cessation programs.
- DennisP 8y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "exceedingly," but: > Overall, 10 percent to 15 percent of lung cancers occur in non-smokers. (Another 50 percent occur in former smokers.) > Two-thirds of the non-smokers who get lung cancer are women, and 20 percent of lung cancers in women occur in individuals who have never smoked. This percentage is significantly higher in Asian women. https://www.verywellhealth.com/lung-cancer-in-non-smokers-2249398 https://www.verywellhealth.com/lung-cancer-in-non-smokers-22... As for the smokers, they generally pay higher health insurance premiums so at least they're contributing their share of resources.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  Lung cancer is still cancer, and while different types of cancers vary in many ways, they are also similar in many ways. Studies into the detection and treatment of lung cancer can (and have) contributed to the detection and treatment of other types of cancers. From a practical perspective, setting aside issues like blame and responsibility and the dollar value of one life vs another, studying all types of disease increases our knowledge of human biology, and our knowledge of disease in general. Keytruda is one example of a therapy that was developed to treat lung cancer (and melanoma), but now looks like it could be effective against other solid tumors that fit a genetic profile. This is not to argue against smoking cessation (or more importantly, prevention) programs. Just that there are reasons to pursue lung cancer treatment research that go beyond the lungs entirely.
- diob 8y ago
  Just to give you a data point. I grew up in a family that smoked in the house. I've never smoked myself. I hope you aren't suggesting that I should be condemned for the sins of my parents if I should one day get lung cancer. Also keep in mind that pollution is going to be a large (if not the largest) contributor to lung cancer in the future.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Please read my comment again. I in no way suggested you be condemned. What I actually suggested is that we do an economic analysis to determine how to deploy our limited healthcare resources in order to maximize net benefits.

by moftz 8y ago

nradov 8y ago

Unlike some other forms of cancer, random lung cancer is exceedingly rare. The vast majority of lung cancer patients were smokers. As a society we have limited resources for healthcare. So it's worth considering whether we might achieve better net results by shifting some resources from lung cancer treatment to smoking cessation programs.

DennisP 8y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "exceedingly," but: > Overall, 10 percent to 15 percent of lung cancers occur in non-smokers. (Another 50 percent occur in former smokers.) > Two-thirds of the non-smokers who get lung cancer are women, and 20 percent of lung cancers in women occur in individuals who have never smoked. This percentage is significantly higher in Asian women. https://www.verywellhealth.com/lung-cancer-in-non-smokers-2249398 https://www.verywellhealth.com/lung-cancer-in-non-smokers-22... As for the smokers, they generally pay higher health insurance premiums so at least they're contributing their share of resources.
snowwrestler 8y ago
Lung cancer is still cancer, and while different types of cancers vary in many ways, they are also similar in many ways. Studies into the detection and treatment of lung cancer can (and have) contributed to the detection and treatment of other types of cancers. From a practical perspective, setting aside issues like blame and responsibility and the dollar value of one life vs another, studying all types of disease increases our knowledge of human biology, and our knowledge of disease in general. Keytruda is one example of a therapy that was developed to treat lung cancer (and melanoma), but now looks like it could be effective against other solid tumors that fit a genetic profile. This is not to argue against smoking cessation (or more importantly, prevention) programs. Just that there are reasons to pursue lung cancer treatment research that go beyond the lungs entirely.
diob 8y ago
Just to give you a data point. I grew up in a family that smoked in the house. I've never smoked myself. I hope you aren't suggesting that I should be condemned for the sins of my parents if I should one day get lung cancer. Also keep in mind that pollution is going to be a large (if not the largest) contributor to lung cancer in the future.
- nradov 8y ago
  Please read my comment again. I in no way suggested you be condemned. What I actually suggested is that we do an economic analysis to determine how to deploy our limited healthcare resources in order to maximize net benefits.