If you could find out what diseases you might have in the future, would you want to know? Researchers at Tufts Medical Center in Boston recently asked people this very question.
The survey they conducted, and whose results were published in a recent issue of Health Economics, asked 1,463 participants whether they would take a blood test to learn whether they would develop Alzheimer's disease, arthritis, breast cancer, or prostate cancer in the future. They were also asked how much they would pay for that test ("Willingness-to-pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents").
Most participants in this hypothetical scenario said that they would want to know whether disease would strike in the future, particularly prostate or breast cancer. They would also be willing to pay up to several hundred dollars to find out.
About a quarter of participants, however, said they would not want to take the blood test. Researchers found that those who were healthier, older, well-educated, and female were more likely to decline the test. "Major concerns expressed included the cost of the test, living with the knowledge of one's disease risk, and the lack of preventive measures [to stop the disease from occurring]," a press release on the survey explained.
Is it better to know, or not to know, what illness you might develop in the future? For some people, it's easier not to know, to not add another worry to their life. I was surprised to learn that most people do want to know what diseases they might develop, though, even if they can't do anything to stop them.
Knowledge is power, and the participants that would want to take the blood test said that they would make the most of their time if they knew they were slated for a life-altering illness in the future, spending more time with family and traveling, for example.
A serious illness brings its own clarity to a person, stripping away trivial concerns, and refocusing their energies on the people and things they care about most. I wish more people had this clarity - without any traumatic trigger such as illness.
Showing posts with label blood cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blood cancer. Show all posts
Monday, January 10, 2011
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Shot that Stops Cancer
Although sexually-transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) infections can cause certain cancers and genital warts in both men and women, the link between HPV infections and cervical cancer makes these viruses especially dangerous for women. For that reason, the CDC added the HPV vaccine to its schedule of recommended vaccines a few years ago. Today, girls and young women can receive an HPV vaccine to prevent infection with the viruses that cause 70% of all cervical cancers (ideally, a girl is vaccinated before she becomes sexually active).
In the past, the CDC has recommended the HPV vaccine only for girls and young women. Boys and young men, who (clearly) often pass on HPV to women, were not vaccinated. Earlier this year, however, the CDC changed a footnote in its HPV vaccine recommendations to include boys and young men.
The CDC's 2010 recommended immunization schedule rather mincingly states that "HPV4 [one of the HPV vaccines] may be administered in a 3-dose series to males aged 9 through 18 years to reduce their likelihood of acquiring genital warts," no doubt to persuade parents of boys that the HPV vaccine can directly benefit their sons. Vaccinating boys, however, also helps prevent cervical cancer in their future female sexual partners.
A recent study in Pediatrics by immunization expert Dr. Gary Freed found that about 11% of parents refuse some vaccines because of concerns that the vaccine might cause health problems or autism in their children. These vaccine safety concerns have been disproved by numerous studies but persist among some parents nonetheless.
I suspect that, in an era of frequent vaccine refusal by parents, the CDC and its advisory committee, ACIP, decided that it was easier to "sell" parents of boys on the HPV vaccine if they said that the vaccine protected their boys from genital warts than if they said that the vaccine would protect their sons' future girlfriends and wives from cancer.
When parents consider getting the HPV vaccine for their boys, perhaps they should ask themselves this: if you could take one small step to prevent cancer in someone else - wouldn't you?
In the past, the CDC has recommended the HPV vaccine only for girls and young women. Boys and young men, who (clearly) often pass on HPV to women, were not vaccinated. Earlier this year, however, the CDC changed a footnote in its HPV vaccine recommendations to include boys and young men.
The CDC's 2010 recommended immunization schedule rather mincingly states that "HPV4 [one of the HPV vaccines] may be administered in a 3-dose series to males aged 9 through 18 years to reduce their likelihood of acquiring genital warts," no doubt to persuade parents of boys that the HPV vaccine can directly benefit their sons. Vaccinating boys, however, also helps prevent cervical cancer in their future female sexual partners.
A recent study in Pediatrics by immunization expert Dr. Gary Freed found that about 11% of parents refuse some vaccines because of concerns that the vaccine might cause health problems or autism in their children. These vaccine safety concerns have been disproved by numerous studies but persist among some parents nonetheless.
I suspect that, in an era of frequent vaccine refusal by parents, the CDC and its advisory committee, ACIP, decided that it was easier to "sell" parents of boys on the HPV vaccine if they said that the vaccine protected their boys from genital warts than if they said that the vaccine would protect their sons' future girlfriends and wives from cancer.
When parents consider getting the HPV vaccine for their boys, perhaps they should ask themselves this: if you could take one small step to prevent cancer in someone else - wouldn't you?
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Can Twitter Save Your Life?
I recently heard about a local 8-year-old girl with leukemia whose parents are looking for a bone marrow donor match for her. Because the girl, Natalie, is Asian, a match (i.e., someone whose cells are similar enough to the girl's cells for her immune system to accept the transplant) is most likely with an Asian donor.
There is an ongoing shortage of ethnic minority donors of bone marrow and stem cells for blood cancer patients (stem cells are extracted from the donor's blood in an outpatient procedure). As a result, Caucasian patients are about twice as likely to find a donor match as minority patients.
I looked at the site for the girl, www.hopefornatalie.com, and looked at a related bone marrow donation site, www.dkmsamericas.org, then tweeted the information to spread the word, because you never know who might be able to help. And perhaps Natalie's case will encourage more people to register as potential bone marrow donors so that patients with blood cancer will have a larger group of donors to search within the National Marrow Donor Program. Donating bone marrow, if you're the right match for a patient, is relatively simple and painless.
To spread the word and find a donor, Natalie's parents created a web page, Facebook page, and Twitter account, using social media to its fullest extent; I heard about Natalie on a Yahoo listserve. Natalie's website includes links to volunteer, register, and make donations, and a media contact number.
Thinking about Natalie's case, however, I am haunted by a number of questions. First of all, I wonder about the families who need bone marrow or blood donors for their ill children but who don't have the tech savvy, access, or language skills to look for much-needed donors through social media.
These families can't cast a wide net looking for donors as Natalie's family has. They are less likely than Natalie's family to find a donor who can save their child. On the other hand, these families do benefit from the additional donors in the national registry who sign up when they hear about children such as Natalie. But to what degree does the surge of new registrants created by cases such as Natalie's mitigate this digital divide?
A while ago, when Twitter was quite new, I stopped to chat with the father of my daughter's classmate at pick-up time. He worked at Twitter, and I asked him what exactly Twitter was supposed to be used for - griping about your day? planning a night out with friends?
Now I know that Twitter is not just a tech toy. It played such a big role in documenting the Iranian election in 2009, for example, that the State Department asked Twitter to change its maintenance schedule in order to keep Twitter online during the protests. Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and other online media are, in fact, extremely powerful for spreading the word about any number of different causes -- political, medical, or personal. Powerful, that is, for people who have access to the technology.
There is an ongoing shortage of ethnic minority donors of bone marrow and stem cells for blood cancer patients (stem cells are extracted from the donor's blood in an outpatient procedure). As a result, Caucasian patients are about twice as likely to find a donor match as minority patients.
I looked at the site for the girl, www.hopefornatalie.com, and looked at a related bone marrow donation site, www.dkmsamericas.org, then tweeted the information to spread the word, because you never know who might be able to help. And perhaps Natalie's case will encourage more people to register as potential bone marrow donors so that patients with blood cancer will have a larger group of donors to search within the National Marrow Donor Program. Donating bone marrow, if you're the right match for a patient, is relatively simple and painless.
To spread the word and find a donor, Natalie's parents created a web page, Facebook page, and Twitter account, using social media to its fullest extent; I heard about Natalie on a Yahoo listserve. Natalie's website includes links to volunteer, register, and make donations, and a media contact number.
Thinking about Natalie's case, however, I am haunted by a number of questions. First of all, I wonder about the families who need bone marrow or blood donors for their ill children but who don't have the tech savvy, access, or language skills to look for much-needed donors through social media.
These families can't cast a wide net looking for donors as Natalie's family has. They are less likely than Natalie's family to find a donor who can save their child. On the other hand, these families do benefit from the additional donors in the national registry who sign up when they hear about children such as Natalie. But to what degree does the surge of new registrants created by cases such as Natalie's mitigate this digital divide?
A while ago, when Twitter was quite new, I stopped to chat with the father of my daughter's classmate at pick-up time. He worked at Twitter, and I asked him what exactly Twitter was supposed to be used for - griping about your day? planning a night out with friends?
Now I know that Twitter is not just a tech toy. It played such a big role in documenting the Iranian election in 2009, for example, that the State Department asked Twitter to change its maintenance schedule in order to keep Twitter online during the protests. Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and other online media are, in fact, extremely powerful for spreading the word about any number of different causes -- political, medical, or personal. Powerful, that is, for people who have access to the technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
