So Disturbed by a Post I Read

9 Recommendations

Hi All: I just read a post that I can't get out of my head. I am so disturbed by it because not only did it basically say in a roundabout way that if we smoked we deserve lung cancer, but also blamed smokers for giving non-smokers lung cancer! We don't have enough to worry about by dealing with our cancer, we now are supposed to feel guilty because "we gave non-smokers cancer". Unfortunately the person doesn't know much about lung cancer yet comes on a lung cancer board to accuse us.
Back in March, I sent the below email to everyone in my address book. I am hoping it is still going around today, but who knows. If anyone wants to do the same, please feel free to use any or all of my email. Of course, I've learned a lot more about lung cancer since I sent this email, but I hope it still makes its point. It is long and at the end it has descriptions of the different types of lung cancer that I obtained from my Johns Hopkins oncologist.

PLEASE HELP ME SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT LUNG CANCER. LET’S HELP SAVE LIVES.

There are many cancers out there that kill people every day, yet lung cancer always seems to be “swept under the rug” because people believe that those who get lung cancer “did it to themselves”. This is NOT TRUE. There are many people out there who have never smoked in their lives, yet have been diagnosed with lung cancer. More and more young people, people in their 20''s, 30’s, and 40’s are being diagnosed each day with lung cancer. In 2007, there were over 1 million people diagnosed with this horrible disease. An oncologist at Johns Hopkins told me that most people who have lung cancer do not even get it from smoking.

I am a 50 year old healthy woman that was diagnosed with Stage IV inoperable adenocarcinoma lung cancer in January 2008. There were no symptoms except a lump on my neck. I first attributed this to stress. After a couple of weeks when it did not disappear, I went to the doctor. My primary care physician insisted that it was a muscle pull and wanted to wait a couple of weeks to watch it. I knew it was not a muscle pull and after numerous struggles with my physician to get her to order tests to determine what this lump could be, advanced stage IV lung cancer was discovered. My doctor called me on my cell phone and informed me over the phone of this news!

How did I get this? I don’t know. Do I deserve this? NO! Does anyone deserve this? NO! Lung cancer does not discriminate. It can hit anyone at anytime.

Since I’ve been diagnosed, I’ve met people on lung cancer discussion boards that come from all walks of life: marathon runners, vegetarians, aerobics instructors, young mothers and fathers, grandparents, brothers and sisters, all just like you and me. One woman whom I met through a discussion board was diagnosed in January of 2008 with lung cancer, and died two short months later. She was a 46 year-old mother of small children.

When a person dies of a heart attack, do we blame them for eating hamburgers? If a person gets shot on the street, do we blame them for being in an unsafe place? No. We don’t blame anyone with any other type of cancer for doing it to themselves. Why blame lung cancer victims? Whether we smoked or not is irrelevant. We have a terrible disease that nobody deserves.

Please help me get the facts out about lung cancer. Forward this email to everyone you know. Let’s get this horrible disease out in the open and make people aware that those of us who have it do not deserve it and did not bring it on ourselves. There are screenings for all kinds of cancer: breast, prostate, colon, cervical, etc., yet no screening for lung cancer. Why not? It’s too late for me, but we can spread the word about the facts of lung cancer and by doing this, maybe we can help other people get diagnosed early or even get people interested in finding a cure and save lives. If, by forwarding this email we save just one life, isn’t it worth it?

If you want to learn more about lung cancer, below is some information I obtained from Johns Hopkins Cancer Center.

I am signing this email with my name to show the seriousness of this email. Help stamp out this killer disease.

Susan Laurents
Centreville, VA
----------------------------------------------------
Lung Cancer Information (obtained by Oncologist at Johns Hopkins Cancer Center):

Lung cancer, in general, can be separated into two types: small cell and non-small cell lung cancer. Small cell lung cancer comprises approximately 15% of all lung cancer cases while non-small cell lung cancer comprises the remaining 85%.

Small cell lung cancer is highly aggressive, responds well to chemotherapy and radiation, but carries a very poor prognosis. Non-small lung cancer generally grows more slowly, responds less well to chemotherapy and radiation, but has a slightly better prognosis.

Non-small cell lung cancer can be divided into multiple sub-types. Squamous cell lung cancer is one of the subtypes. Most squamous cell lung cancer patients are active or former smokers. Squamous cell cancers tend to be locally aggressive and spread outside of the lungs much later in their course.

Adenocarcinomas of the lung tend to present along the periphery of the lungs and are seen in both smokers and non-smokers alike. Adenocarcinomas tend to spread through the blood stream to locations outside of the lungs earlier in their course of development than squamous cell lung cancer.

When putting together a plan for non-small cell lung cancer, the first thing to understand is how we stage lung cancer and how staging impacts our choice of treatment. In general we group lung cancer into four stages. To understand the staging, you first need to understand how lung cancer spreads. Spread of lung cancer develops through three mechanisms. First is growth of the tumor locally. Tumors as they grow expand in size and can grow into other structures that are near by. The second mechanism of spread is through the lymphatic system. The lymphatic system is part of the cleaning system of the body. White blood cells can move through this system to clear up infections. Unlike the blood system, the vessels in the lymph system carry liquid that is moving slowly. Generally when cancer cells get into the lymph system they involve the lymph nodes closest to the primary tumor first and continue down the lymph vessel involving more lymph nodes along the way. In the lung, there are lymph nodes within the lung as well as lymph nodes that are in the center of the chest around the heart, airways, and major blood vessels. The final way for cancer to spread is through the blood stream. When cancer cells get into the blood stream they can go anywhere blood goes and set up new sites of tumor in those places. These new tumor sites are called metastases. The most common sites for lung cancer to develop metastatic tumors are the opposite lung, liver, bones, adrenal glands, and brain.

Once you understand how lung cancer spreads, the staging system is straightforward. Stage I lung cancer is a solitary tumor in the lung. By definition, stage I tumors have no involvement of lymph nodes or distant spread. Stage I tumors are optimally treated with surgery with possible chemotherapy after resection. Stage II tumors are generally larger tumors. They also may involve local lymph nodes. These tumors are also optimally treated with surgery. We have conclusive evidence that patients with stage II lung cancer that has been resected benefit from chemotherapy after recovering from their surgery. Stage III tumors are more complicated. Stage III tumors involve the lymph nodes in the center of the chest, have multiple tumors in one lobe of the lung, or invade major structures such as the main airway, major blood vessels, or heart. Some of these tumors can be removed surgically, but most are treated with a combination of chemotherapy and radiation. Stage IV lung cancer patients have distant spread of the cancer. By definition this means the cancer has entered the blood stream and is setting up new sites.

When approaching stage IV lung cancer, the main treatment approach is chemotherapy. Surgery and radiation are both local treatments. Surgery only removes the cancer cells the surgeon can see. Radiation only damages the cancer cells that are in the path of the radiation beams. Chemotherapy is a systemic approach since it travels through the blood stream. Chemotherapy can affect not only tumors in the lungs but also tumors in the new sites that may be set up. The one place that chemotherapy has difficulty reaching is the brain. The brain is a protected site and many medications including chemotherapy cannot reach into the blood vessels of the brain. In stage IV or metastatic lung cancer, we generally recommend chemotherapy alone unless there is a specific problem that needs to be addressed such as spread to the brain, a painful site of spread to the bones, or tumor compressing an essential structure such as the blood vessels that go in and out of the heart and lungs or the main airways. In these scenarios we often use radiation to treat that local problem and then use chemotherapy for a systemic approach. Surgery generally does not offer any benefit.

115 replies

Susan,

Recently, I emailed much of my address book about supporting the new Senate Lung Cancer Mortality act by emailing their Senators. In my email I had included a short paragraph about the deadliness of lung cancer, compared to the "politically correct" cancers.

I got very few responses to that email (no surprise) but one of those who responded said that the survival rates "are shocking. I had no idea."

I thought about sending a personal email with the kind of information people need to know, but haven't gone ahead with it. Having WBR for the last 3 weeks has taken a lot out of me.

However, you've inspired me to make sure I do it eventually - and ask people to forward it. So many of my correspondents forward all sorts of silly stuff to me - the least they can do is forward something important to their address books.

As an ex-smoker who quit more than 30 years before diagnosis, I think I can make the point that quitting smoking is not a guarantee, and that research in early diagnosis, therapies, and even preventives is desperately needed - but we aren't getting it!

Thanks for the suggestion.

Susan

Dear Susan,
Many times i read the following "hi I am new to this site, I have LC and I never smoked". Why people feel they have to add this I will never know. My George smoked and he is dying of Lung Cancer. My heart goes out to all regardless if they smoked or not. This is a terrible disease and noone should have to suffer. This cancer has destoyed my life as well. It hurts so bad.
Janet

Hi Janet:

I agree with you. I just posted to someone else that I smoked and feared lung cancer every day. When I got lung cancer and was told my smoking did not cause it, I was almost a little upset because I could've accepted it better if I had done it to myself. Before diagnosis, I didn't know there were different types of lung cancers either, so in some ways I feel that I can't blame everyone else for not knowing that either.

I am starting to change my thinking about bringing lung cancer to the forefront - if it takes non/never-smokers' voices to bring awareness to this, then I'm happy to accept that to help those who are not YET affected by lung cancer (and maybe in time to help us who are already affected). Lung cancer awareness will put fear into the general public knowing that no one is exempt from this horrible disease.

My heart goes out to you and George but I am glad he is such a fighter. Your support and love for George is truly amazing. I am truly inspired by both of you, and you are both in my thoughts and prayers always.

Susan

Janet~

I can't speak for others, but I think that the media, medical system, etc.. have so beaten it into all of our heads that "smoking causes cancer" that non- and never-smokers are probably in quite a state of shock when they are diagnosed with LC. I know that was the case when my husband was diagnosed. As I just posted on another thread, when my husband repeatedly visited his GP's office with a cough last summer, his doctor shrugged off lung cancer as "impossible" after learning that my husband had never smoked. Even at the cancer center, the oncologists and pulmonary surgeon's have repeatedly asked, "And you've never smoked?!!" I don't know how many times my husband has had to tell a doctor, "No, I have never smoked." It's a frustrating truth that many non-smokers are misdiagnosed for many months because they and their doctors are not aware of the fact that they are at almost as much risk as those who smoke. I think that's something that needs to change -- for several reasons.
1.) More people might be diagnosed at an earlier stage.
2.) Lung cancer might get more attention and research funding.
I see both of those as positive outcomes. Believe me when I say that my husband and I don't care at all how anyone got their lung cancer. All we care about is that everyone starts busting their butts to find a cure for this damned disease before it claims more lives.

bev

Hi Toddy and Bev:

I smoked and had shortness of breath, upper back pain, etc., and went to doctors many times about this. Sadly, even as a smoker, no doctor ever suggested I get checked for lung cancer. They said I was too young. Even 2 years later, when I finally did get a CT scan, the technician asked me why I was there and I told her I was there for possible lung cancer (if you remember I did research on the internet when I found the lump on my neck and was pretty sure I had cancer). She laughed and said "everyone says that".
For some reason, no one wants to believe a person could have lung cancer, even physicians. It's really strange.
Susan

Hi Susan:
I hope you are doing well with your WBR and that you don't feel too many side effects. Good luck with your treatment.
Susan

susan - thank you
karen

Susan~

When my husband was (finally!) diagnosed, I visited several different LC forums, spending time going through the treatment histories that many people have posted in their profiles. I was repeatedly amazed at, and made a mental note of, how often I came across histories so similar to my husband's.... repeated trips to doctors due to persistent coughing or shortness of breath, only to be given inhalers or several different prescriptions for antibiotics, then an xray which often didn't find anything, and then finally, many weeks or months later, a CT that revealed all.

Some time ago, I posted a note related to this topic on Dr. West's OncTalk forum and he commented something to the effect that it isn't unusual for those with lung cancer to go a minimum of several weeks (and sometimes considerably longer) before being diagnosed. I don't know what the problem is. I did discuss this a bit with the respiratory doctor who worked on my husband's diagnosis and he said that, for many years, it seemed that the typical patient profile for LC was an older male with a long history of smoking. However, he was quick to say that, in recent years, it seems the "typical case" isn't anything like that -- he's been seeing more young people, women, and non-smokers. But he's the "go to guy" who sees people once they've been referred. I wonder if general practitioners are still clinging to their perception of older male smokers?

Whatever the case, I think it's important to make it clear to the general public that LC is a risk to everyone. And, I think there needs to more awareness education for those working in the health care system to dislodge their misconceptions about the "typical LC patient".

Well, enough preaching from atop my soap box. It's a nice day here and I must get out to work in my garden.
Happy 4th of July to everyone.

bev

Thanks Susan for your very informative information. It also makes me very angry and it has upset me a lot that when I was first diagnosed and my three daughters would tell friends/co-workers, ususally the first question was - did she smoke? I did for many years. If I were to have breast cancer instead nobody would ask this question and yet almost everyone that I personally know that has breast cancer was/is a smoker. Interesting?

Thanks again.

Sylvia

I don't know how many people I've had to tell that I don't smoke. I can't even be around smoke because of my asthma. It's pathetic that the world thinks the only way you can get lung cancer is if you smoke. However, I thought that very thing until my diagnosis. It goes back to educating the public. We *MUST* educate the public every chance we get.

Thank you for such a wonderful post. :)

Lorie

Bravo to you Susan. I found your post very informative.

I think that people should be more sensitive and compassionate to the individual who has cancer, rather than put any emphasis or importance as to whether or not they smoked.

I have a hard time figuring out the thought process of some.

What a great post Susan!

I printed it out and have folded several copies and stuck them in my purse. The next well-meaning person that asks me if my husband ever smoked is going to get handed your article!

We were at an eye doctor appointment last week (nothing to do with his LC) and since his medical information had changed we were telling the nurse about it before she did his eye drops etc. She (of course) asked if he smoked and he said yes and she actually had the nerve to tsk tsk tsk him and say "if only we could go back and do things over again".

OMG!!! I almost jumped out of my chair!!!

I told my husband that from now on he should tell people that ask that absurd question that, no, as a matter of fact he's never smoked.

Anyways that was an excellent post and I really appreciated it. Thanks.

Khari

When asked if I smoked,I respond by asking "Do you ask AIDS patients if they had unprotected sex?" ....

Let me start by saying that believe I saw the same post, and I agree with Susan that it was pointed and unkind. However, I will be honest (so please don't beat me up) that I'm torn a bit on this issue generally. I am one of those naughty people who has introduced myself here and elsewhere as a non-smoker with lung cancer. I will not apologize for making the deliberate choice not to smoke--the reality is that the chance of a non-smoker contracting lung cancer is less. I'm sure the diagnosis was a shock for each one of us for different reasons...for me it was a shock because I never smoked and I hadn't even reached 40. In fact, because I didn't smoke, it took over two years for me to get a diagnosis, because no doctor was looking for it.

Because I've already seen a bunch of comments upset with people who describe themselves "non-smokers," I do ask that you not bonk us on the head for making that distinction. That is an important part of my identity as a cancer patient/survivor/person that is not a commentary on anyone else's decisions. Smokers and non-smokers are sort of subsets of the same group (just like you might be interested in connecting with someone with the same type of lung cancer or from the same geographic region), and I think that those who have not smoked have an interest in sharing some unique issues that they may want to talk about.

But we are all part of that more important group, those surviving and fighting lung cancer...something NONE of us deserve, despite any circumstance. We all have work to do to help those yet unaffected to understand the impact of this disease. Please don't make that leap to assume that by describing oneself as a non-smoker you can lump that person into the "blamer" category. And as others have said, you can strategically use the non-smokers to waive that banner that gets the uninformed to notice. Whatever works, right?

I hate the blame game and the resulting stigma as much as anyone and know that people can be incredibly insensitive. I'm sorry for that. It's incredibly unfair, and I've had that discussion with many people. But just as the smokers want the non-smokers to not pass judgment, I'd ask those who might have smoked to not pass judgment on non-smokers either. I think it's safe to say that we wouldn't be here discussing these issues if we weren't concerned for all of us living with the disease.

--stephanie

I now understand why, never thought about it that way. I was hurt thinking it meant that if you smoke you deserve it. Thank you
Janet

Hi Janet,

Thanks for responding. I'm sorry that you might have been hurt by people coming on the boards and stating that they are non- or never-smokers. I'm sure that few (if any) would ever have felt that someone deserved to have lung cancer -- that certainly isn't my opinion.

I'd be more inclined to think that most non- or never-smokers who come to these LC forums are hoping to find other non-smokers so that they can compare survivor histories, treatments, etc... For example, when my husband was first diagnosed, we were hoping to find others who had worked in similar industrial settings to that we might understand if his LC was a result of exposure to asbestos dust, fumes, etc.... and if that would impact his treatments and chances for survival.

Now that we're further along in this LC thing, our reasons for studying histories and treatments are different again. Now we are thinking it is important to know when a treatment is more likely to work on a never-smoker because we shouldn't be wasting time on chemo treatments that may not work as well. For example, here in Ontario, Canada, we can't usually get access to Tarceva until 3rd line (you must try 2 lines of chemo first). We did that (jumped through the required hoops), but in doing so, my husband's health seems to have been compromised by the Taxotere used for his second line. Being a never-smoker and NSCLC adeno, it would have made a lot more sense if he could have tried Tarceva for his second, or even first line (many oncologists now share the opinion that non- and never-smokers should try Tarceva earlier on in their treatment as there is a good chance that they will do well). From a purely commonsense point of view, it's a little crazy that my husband had to have 2 lines of chemo before being eligible to use a drug that he has a much better than average chance of responding to. In my opinion, this is one of those situations where non- or never-smokers should be pressing their oncologists (and the provincial government) to consider their patient profile when developing their treatment plan -- and going with the protocol that makes the most medical sense as far as successful treatment is concerned.


Anyhow, this smoker/non-smoker thing is a complex issue. As I and several others have mentioned on this and a couple of other threads over the past few days, if the non-smoker card can be played to leverage better funding for lung cancer research, then maybe it's worth gritting our teeth and going ahead with playing it as one of those "the end justifies the means" kind of things. For, if we had more effective treatments for lung cancer (whatever the cause), perhaps none of us would even have a reason to "be here" on these threads -- and that would certainly be a very good thing.

take care,

bev

Susan,
Thank you for an easy to read, easy to understand, informative post.
Cathy

Stephanie:

I agree with you 100%. You should be proud of yourself for never smoking and not apologize for stating that. I personally have never had an issue with that. If I was posting on this board and never smoked, I'd say it too, and I would probably tell everyone I know that I never smoked. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

The point of my post was twofold: one, that the post I read disturbed me because someone would come on a lung cancer discussion board and accuse smokers who are already dealing with lung cancer for giving her son cancer. This is a support board and that was far from support, and had no business being stated here.

The second reason for my post was to try to bring awareness to lung cancer and to point out that no one deserves it whether they smoked or not, and it shouldn't matter how we got it, but we did.

Believe me, I for one am envious of people who never smoked and if I had the chance to start over, I wouldn't smoke. Not because of the lung cancer because that probably doesn't matter, but because of all of the other health issues and stigmas associated with it.

I hope this makes sense. Still tired from last night's festivities.

Susan

Bev;

I think the same goes for smokers or ex-smokers. We look for others like us to see what kind of treatments work for them. The problem is I think people are afraid to say whether they smoked or are still smoking.

When I first came on this board I was struggling with quitting smoking (still struggling with it), and I posted to smokers asking about their treatments and what worked. I didn't get any replies. I don't think it's because I'm one of the only trying-to-quit smokers out there, but that people are afraid to say because of the stigma.

There was a post not to long ago where someone talked about still smoking and the first reply to them was something mean about how stupid they were for smoking in their condition. People are only looking for help from other people in their same situation, but when a smoker gets that type of reply, they are afraid to speak up. I think that's why we (smokers and ex-smokers) get so defensive. We're just looking for help and support like everyone else.

Again, hope this makes sense.

Susan

Hi Susan,

For sure, it does make sense. I've noticed the same thing about when someone mentions smoking, strategies for quitting, etc... I don't know why some people come out with the weird tsk-tsk-tsk remarks. I also agree that it's important to connect with others who share similarities in their histories. This is important stuff when it comes to diagnosis, treatment strategies, choice of chemo agents, etc... especially as new drugs appear which might work well for one group, but not for another. Why waste time and, even more importantly, risk your health, on a treatment that has a low likelihood of working while also the distinct possibility of doing you some serious harm.

In a perfect world, what I would like to see is people just giving a sort of matter-of-fact shrug to the "cause" part of everyone's histories -- it's a "fact" and that's all. Instead, it would be nice to harness and direct some of this focus and energy to devising strategies for speeding up the process for finding better treatments (or a cure) for this damned disease.

Sounds like you had a good 4th of July!

bev

Add to the discussion

New user? Join here.
Forgot password?
Keep me signed in on this computer until I sign out

Search

Find information and discussion about health topics in 304,336 posts by members like yourself. Learn more...

Join

Join safe, secure groups sponsored by trusted organizations that care about your health. Learn more...

Connect

Connect with 80,776 members and make friends who share your interests, learn about conditions and treatments, find support and more. Learn more...

You