If cancer affected 2 in 3 instead of 1 in 3 would this be better or worse?!


Question: If cancer affected 2 in 3 instead of 1 in 3 would this be better or worse?
Would it be better or worse?

Answers:

It would be worse.
WAY worse

I know how math works



If we keep advancing the years of life expectancy by curing other diseases, we will eventually see 2 out of 3 people developing some type of cancer. One of the main reasons we see malignancies in 1 out 3 now is the increase in life expectancy for developed countries. 100 years ago the average American lived 47 years. Now it is ~ 80 years. Most cancers occur in people over 65 years of age.
It has been predicted that males will ALL develop prostate cancer if they live long enough - though they might not actually die of the prostate cancer.

What you ask is interesting. It raises the double edged sword of increasing longevity. As we have more and more elderly people dependent on younger people for support, the burden of the working age people will become back breaking. The sad truth is that we all have to die from something sometime. If people work from age 25 to 65 - 40 years - and then live on doing nothing for another 30 or 40 years, how will the care of the older generation be paid for ? We are seeing this problem now with Medicare in the USA. Most medical expenditures are for people in retirement over 65. The vast majority of patients I saw in 20 years as a cancer specialist doctor were over 65. Cancer - more than any other cause - is a disease of aging. Even lung cancers which are 90% - caused by smoking - present at an average age of 70 years.

So - cancer affecting 2 of 3 might be better because it could mean that life expectancy is longer than even now. It might be better from the economic standpoint since we all must go sometime from something and older people - much as I hate to say this - become a burden on society. I'll expect the thumbs down now. Would it be great if people lived forever but were hampered by all the frailties of old age for centuries ? If we could live forever as we are at age 30 it might be grand, but then - what would we do with the population explosion on this planet ?

It's a good question that makes us think.

MD hematologist and medical oncologist - cancer and leukemia specialist physician for 20 years



better for the drug companies who could make more money
better for the culling of the over all world population

worse for the poor 2 our of 3 sods in question



Then you would have asked why not 3 in 3.
Fact is cancer is always worse.

WW




The consumer health information on answer-health.com is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions.
The answer content post by the user, if contains the copyright content please contact us, we will immediately remove it.
Copyright © 2007-2011 answer-health.com -   Terms of Use -   Contact us

Health Categories