This doesn't surprise me too much. Cancer treatment, especially in the case of radiation or chemotherapy, can be extremely harsh and carries very real long term health risks from the treatment itself. Even surgery, as Jobs was initially facing, has its risks. Additionally, the mere diagnosis of cancer can cause a lot of anxiety, and people don't always make the best decisions under that type of emotional stress.
When I had Lance Armstrong cancer a few years ago, I had people coming out of the woodwork telling me to try all these unproven "cures" including special diets and other quackery. They meant well, but I think many people are too eager to believe stories of miraculous cures (and conspiracy theories about modern medicine suppressing them) without taking the rational view that if a miracle cure really worked, scientists would be eager to study it and prove its effectiveness statistically.
I tried to be very rational in my decisions on treatment. My #1 priority was to get rid of the cancer; preventing negative side effects of treatment was only a secondary consideration. I think for some people, they lose sight of the fact that if they delay and let the cancer take over, they won't even be around to worry about the negative effects of treatment later on. Better to take care of it now using known, but harsh treatments, than not even get the chance to deal with the side effects down the road.
Luckily in my case, I had the most treatable form and caught it early, so I did have the luxury to think about prevention of long term side effects. After initial surgery, I was given an 85% chance that it completely took care of the cancer. I had the choice of doing radiation immediately to reduce the chance of recurrence from 15% to about 3%, or I could do strict surveillance (CT scans every few months) and wait to see if anything came back. I chose surveillance, hoping to avoid long term risks of radiation, but ONLY because I researched it and knew that if the cancer came back, my odds of ultimately being cured weren't any worse. For many other cancers, this is not the case; you'd better get it now, because if it comes back, your survival odds are significantly worse. I consider myself lucky to have the situation I did.
Long story short, it did come back 6 months later (guess I was in the 15% rather than the 85%), I did radiation at that point, and have been cancer free for over 3 years now. Honestly the toughest decision through all of it was not whether to seek alternative treatment or standard treatment, but whether to do chemo or radiation when the cancer came back. I had different doctors advising different things, and it was probably the most stressful time in my life. But either way, I was going with proven medical treatment to wipe that thing out.
When I had Lance Armstrong cancer a few years ago, I had people coming out of the woodwork telling me to try all these unproven "cures" including special diets and other quackery. They meant well, but I think many people are too eager to believe stories of miraculous cures (and conspiracy theories about modern medicine suppressing them) without taking the rational view that if a miracle cure really worked, scientists would be eager to study it and prove its effectiveness statistically.
I tried to be very rational in my decisions on treatment. My #1 priority was to get rid of the cancer; preventing negative side effects of treatment was only a secondary consideration. I think for some people, they lose sight of the fact that if they delay and let the cancer take over, they won't even be around to worry about the negative effects of treatment later on. Better to take care of it now using known, but harsh treatments, than not even get the chance to deal with the side effects down the road.
Luckily in my case, I had the most treatable form and caught it early, so I did have the luxury to think about prevention of long term side effects. After initial surgery, I was given an 85% chance that it completely took care of the cancer. I had the choice of doing radiation immediately to reduce the chance of recurrence from 15% to about 3%, or I could do strict surveillance (CT scans every few months) and wait to see if anything came back. I chose surveillance, hoping to avoid long term risks of radiation, but ONLY because I researched it and knew that if the cancer came back, my odds of ultimately being cured weren't any worse. For many other cancers, this is not the case; you'd better get it now, because if it comes back, your survival odds are significantly worse. I consider myself lucky to have the situation I did.
Long story short, it did come back 6 months later (guess I was in the 15% rather than the 85%), I did radiation at that point, and have been cancer free for over 3 years now. Honestly the toughest decision through all of it was not whether to seek alternative treatment or standard treatment, but whether to do chemo or radiation when the cancer came back. I had different doctors advising different things, and it was probably the most stressful time in my life. But either way, I was going with proven medical treatment to wipe that thing out.
