OT snooker player Paul Hunter Dies

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 10 Oct 2006, 08:30

silkov wrote:Sad to hear that about your mum Stu, seems even more 'unfair' when shes been a nonsmoker. I dont know if I agree with the doc telling her that its bound to come back, ....nobody can ever know for certain and surely a positive outlook is a good defence to it and it must be hard to be positive when your doctor says something like that. Sometimes I think Doctors can say too much and they certainly arent right all the time!.

Yeah, I agree the Doctor has shattered her confidence. She is a positive but realistic person she has always said its a good chance of its return, but had the attitude that as there is a chance it won't - she will fight it. If the Doctor would have said "90%" then would have been fine, but this "105%" has shattered her. She's had alot of pain over the years and is now thinking "was it worth it".

I've told her that the Doctor was keen to do tests on her, regarding the genetics experiement so was probably trying to bully her to taking some pretty invasive tests (i.e. "help your kids, cause your pretty much fecked"). She is going to fight it hard again.

I do have to say though everytime she caughs, complains of a migrane or anything I do think "its back".

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 10 Oct 2006, 08:37

Terrible news about Hunter, I had no idea he was so close to the end of his battle although I was aware about him taking a year off.

Best wishes to your family as well Stu.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 10 Oct 2006, 08:37

If it's any consolation stu, the stuff about 'positive attitude' has since been proven to be totally fallacious, there's no evidence whatsoever that believing you are going to get better has any significant effect on your prognosis, so the doctor, aside from the psychological damage caused (which is not insignificant by the sounds of it), won't have affected her chances of evading the disease in the future. It's a horrific prospect to face I am sure, but there is no such thing as 105% chance, and even it if did return, it could be many many years later, and in old age cancer is very prevalent anyway.

A friend of mine's mother died of cancer a few years back, she had suffered from Cancer before, but that was over 30 years previously, so she had a period of about 26 years where she was free of the disease and was able to live a fruitful life and watch her children grow into adults.

I'm not saying your mother will or will not contract the disease again, merely that there is a very wide range of possible prognoses, which is something the doctor should have highlighted.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 10 Oct 2006, 08:39

listen to me. this idiotic man who calls himself a doctor would have to explain that comment to his local health authority. and i will wager he is in breach of his commitment to their code of practice. not only that, i wouldnt go by anything he says. such a crass comment can only come from someone who knows shite all about the disease and is merely talking off the top of his head with no genuine basis for such an opinion.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 10 Oct 2006, 08:44

Yes, given that it most definetly NOT certain the cancer will return, how could the doctor possibly justify that comment, if those really were the words he used, I think he should be flagged up and reported to his Primary Care Trust, because what he said is tantamount to saying 'you're going to die of cancer.' Given that you mum is currently not suffering from Cancer from what you have said and is in remission, that's pretty bloody stupid.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 10 Oct 2006, 09:51

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, given that it most definetly NOT certain the cancer will return, how could the doctor possibly justify that comment, if those really were the words he used, I think he should be flagged up and reported to his Primary Care Trust, because what he said is tantamount to saying 'you're going to die of cancer.' Given that you mum is currently not suffering from Cancer from what you have said and is in remission, that's pretty bloody stupid.

Yes, the Doc said "105%" as I was in the room as it was disgussing the genetic thing. Although he didn't say "105% you'll get Cancer that will kill you". He wasn't a nice doctor I felt he was bullying in nature and wanted us to perform these tests. We certainly will not be seeing him again, and he said a few things that we could have taken action against and gone to his Primary Care Trust - not just about the Cancer percentage. However, at the time we were a bit gobsmacked and didn't think of it - anyway, its his against our word. He practically assured me that I'll have Cancer and said my uncle was 90% certain (and he hasn't had any Cancer yet). We did mention why is he saying "90%" for my Uncle, when he hasn't had Cancer and his response was "I'd give him the same percentage as Mrs Jones (Mum) if he had a previous case".

Touchwood, thus far the cancers my mother has had hasn't required chemo. One was spreading but wasn't malignant, the other (malignant) was detected at a very early stage and was operable and the doctor felt in her condition (she was in poor health recovering from the non malignant tumour) that the Chemo would do more harm than good. Of course, it adds to the worry a bit (i.e. "should we have demanded Chemo") - put four years down the road it hasn't comeback - had a few scares, but they were false alarms.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 10 Oct 2006, 10:08

Was this a GP or a consultant. If he was a GP, then he certainly was not qualified to make such statements, and if he was an oncology consultant, I would have expected him to be much more circumspect than to suggest such figures off the top of his head. I used to work in an ongology department and have read lots of reports and don't ever remember such ludricrous figures as '90% likely' being bandied about. There is a hereditary risk of many cancers, but it would be based on your mothers parents and grandparents' incidency of cancer. To say that her brother was 90% likely to get cancer, before the genetic investigations were even complete sounds like utter bollocks to me.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 10 Oct 2006, 10:28

It certainly doesnt sound right that the doctor said this to your mother... does sound very bullying and also incompetent... it is certianly not the sort of statement that has the welfare of the patient in mind. I think he could well have been trying to bully your mother into having these genetic tests. Personally if that was my mother I would be very unhappy about her being talked to like that. Perhaps it is possible for your mother to see another doctor in the future. While it may not be clinically proven that attitude decides whether you get ill or not, nobody should be left with what amounts to a death sentance hanging over their head, like your mother has been because of this stupid doctor. She may have a replapse, she may not, she may well be ok for another 5 or 10 years. Look at Bobby Robson, he was given a couple of months I believe about 10 years ago... I'd certainly say that his positive attitude has helped him through the years...
Things like this make me angry as I've been involved with Doctors in various ways over the years and some of the things they come out with you wouldnt expect a town dunce to say or do... one of the things I've learnt is to take everything they say with a pinch of salt and if neccessary move on to someone else if you're not happy with them...
My father has diabetes and 90% of the problems with it is trying to make sure he gets the right treatment and advise... the catalogue of mistakes and mixups that have occured you wouldnt believe....

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 10 Oct 2006, 10:33

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Was this a GP or a consultant. If he was a GP, then he certainly was not qualified to make such statements, and if he was an oncology consultant, I would have expected him to be much more circumspect than to suggest such figures off the top of his head. I used to work in an ongology department and have read lots of reports and don't ever remember such ludricrous figures as '90% likely' being bandied about. There is a hereditary risk of many cancers, but it would be based on your mothers parents and grandparents' incidency of cancer. To say that her brother was 90% likely to get cancer, before the genetic investigations were even complete sounds like utter bollocks to me.

He is apparently a top surgeon dealing with the Pancreas. Definately gave me the impression that he was either drunk or was just trying to frighten us. He gave the 90% figure to my uncle as he has had chronic Pancreatists.

My mother is the longest surviving person in the UK with the operation she had to remove a part of her pancreas. It was 10 years ago, but he was saying that the operation is now 10 a penny. He also said that my mother should be able to eat fried foods and drink alcohol - well her own surgeon said A pint would probably leave her in intensive care and I've seen the reaction to her attempting to eat fried foods. Thats the thing I used to help her spirits, cause despite the recommendation we have recieved - he clearly didn't understand her case and therefore not much of an idea.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 10 Oct 2006, 10:42

stujones wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Was this a GP or a consultant. If he was a GP, then he certainly was not qualified to make such statements, and if he was an oncology consultant, I would have expected him to be much more circumspect than to suggest such figures off the top of his head. I used to work in an ongology department and have read lots of reports and don't ever remember such ludricrous figures as '90% likely' being bandied about. There is a hereditary risk of many cancers, but it would be based on your mothers parents and grandparents' incidency of cancer. To say that her brother was 90% likely to get cancer, before the genetic investigations were even complete sounds like utter bollocks to me.
He is apparently a top surgeon dealing with the Pancreas. Definately gave me the impression that he was either drunk or was just trying to frighten us. He gave the 90% figure to my uncle as he has had chronic Pancreatists.

My mother is the longest surviving person in the UK with the operation she had to remove a part of her pancreas. It was 10 years ago, but he was saying that the operation is now 10 a penny. He also said that my mother should be able to eat fried foods and drink alcohol - well her own surgeon said A pint would probably leave her in intensive care and I've seen the reaction to her attempting to eat fried foods. Thats the thing I used to help her spirits, cause despite the recommendation we have recieved - he clearly didn't understand her case and therefore not much of an idea.

He sounds like a complete tool mate, the fact that your mother has beaten the C twice without Chemo is a very good sign I'd say, though I'm no doctor... the drunk theory sounds possible to me I've encountered several doctors under the influence of something...

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 10 Oct 2006, 11:18

I was gutted when I heard the news about Paul Hunter, he was a fantastic player.

In one of the British Masters titles that he won (can't remember which one) he was getting thrashed, in the mid session interval he went back to his changing room boned his missus and came back out and won the final - Respect

RIP Paul

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 10 Oct 2006, 11:21

Yeah, he knew how to enjoy himself it seems, good on him, ...snooker will be a much more boring place without him...

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 10 Oct 2006, 13:08

A lot of cancer-related stories on this thread - I had a (youngish) uncle myself who died of cancer a couple of years ago - and I think it shows that 'in this day and age' cancer is one of the most prolific, affecting and hard-hitting of illnesses.

The most sickening too - in more ways than one. It can affect the healthy and 'clean living' as well as the smokers etc. Quite ironic that Paul dies days before Alex Higgins makes another comeback attempt in Ireland.

He also leaves behind a daughter who I think is only a year or two old. Extremely sad. RIP Paul.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 10 Oct 2006, 13:20

jomothepure wrote:A lot of cancer-related stories on this thread - I had a (youngish) uncle myself who died of cancer a couple of years ago - and I think it shows that 'in this day and age' cancer is one of the most prolific, affecting and hard-hitting of illnesses.

The most sickening too - in more ways than one. It can affect the healthy and 'clean living' as well as the smokers etc. Quite ironic that Paul dies days before Alex Higgins makes another comeback attempt in Ireland.

He also leaves behind a daughter who I think is only a year or two old. Extremely sad. RIP Paul.

Higgins himself a cancer sufferer.

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 10 Oct 2006, 13:36

stujones wrote:
jomothepure wrote:A lot of cancer-related stories on this thread - I had a (youngish) uncle myself who died of cancer a couple of years ago - and I think it shows that 'in this day and age' cancer is one of the most prolific, affecting and hard-hitting of illnesses.

The most sickening too - in more ways than one. It can affect the healthy and 'clean living' as well as the smokers etc. Quite ironic that Paul dies days before Alex Higgins makes another comeback attempt in Ireland.

He also leaves behind a daughter who I think is only a year or two old. Extremely sad. RIP Paul.
Higgins himself a cancer sufferer.

Yes, sorry. I meant that, whilst I think it's wrong to say someone "had it coming" to them, you in some ways thought Higgens' life style - the drink and the smokes in particular - would always meet with a sticky end. Sure enough he got throat cancer. But he - somehow - is still on the go, whilst the Young Hunter dies. I just mean to illustrate that cancer isn't a particularly kind or considerate illness to say the least, in that it can affect the healthy and 'clean living' too

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 10 Oct 2006, 16:29

i know you'll ignore this, stu, but this quack needs reporting and a great big boot out of medical practice. it would be responsible of you to report your experience.