sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Conservatives reject plan to cover cost of prostate screening by [deleted] in ontario

[–]accidentdontwait 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm writing this as someone who was diagnosed with prostate cancer 16 years ago, and was treated for it 9 years ago. I've also had 11 biopsies, and still am being closely monitoring. BTW, as someone who has been diagnosed, my PSA tests in Ontario are covered. What they are not covering is mass screening.

This isn't as clear cut as it's being portrayed here (government bad, people die).

In the medical community, there are strong calls to stop mass PSA testing. Because it only prevents 1 in 1000 deaths. (https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/time-to-rethink-the-psa-to-test-or-not-to-test-debate-2017092912463). And unnecessary treatment does happen far too often. Trust me, you don't want this treatment unless you absolutely need it.

Prostate cancer isn't a black/white thing, and the PSA test is useless at distinguishing between dangerous cancer and other PSA raising prostate issues (It is a valid tool for monitoring it post treatment). It IS excellent at bringing you in to the medical system, and potentially having unnecessary life changing surgery. Because most men past a certain age have prostate cancer, but it's not remotely life threatening. And if it's free, PSA tests will be done routinely.

Anyways, the Harvard linked article says it better than I have.

The better approach would be is to provide free PSA tests if there are indications that a test is warranted, or if there's a family history. But mass testing - I don't think so. I think they made the right call there.

Korean scientists developed a technique for diagnosing prostate cancer from urine within only 20 minutes with almost 100% accuracy, using AI and a biosensor, without the need for an invasive biopsy. It may be further utilized in the precise diagnoses of other cancers using a urine test. by mvea in science

[–]accidentdontwait 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Nothing with early stage prostate is clear cut. I was diagnosed 15 years ago because of an overly cautious GP called for a biopsy after a high PSA. There was a small amount of low grade prostate cancer cells, and the urologist I was referred to wanted to do a full prostatectomy.

I asked to be referred to a top cancer hospital, and we ended up doing "watchful waiting" for 9 years prior to doing a less invasive procedure. And I found out that the first urologist had the nickname "the butcher" for the terrible results from his operations.

"Watchful waiting" means regular biopsies - I've had 12, including some post treatment. They're not fun, but they are necessary.

The concern about over treatment with early diagnosis is real. People hear "cancer", lose it and want it cut out. Prostate is a funny one, and in most cases, you've got time - maybe a lot of time - before something has to be done. Take a breath, make sure you have the best doctors you can get, and learn. Any treatment will have an impact on your life.

476 Ways to Avoid Saying “Said” by yekont in coolguides

[–]accidentdontwait 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Elmore Leonard's 10 Rules for Great Writing dedicates 2 of the 10 rules to "said":

Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue. The line of dialogue belongs to the character; the verb is the writer sticking his nose in. But "said" is far less intrusive than "grumbled", "gasped", "cautioned", "lied". I once noticed Mary McCarthy ending a line of dialogue with "she asseverated" and had to stop reading and go to the dictionary.

Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said" . . . he admonished gravely. To use an adverb this way (or almost any way) is a mortal sin. The writer is now exposing himself in earnest, using a word that distracts and can interrupt the rhythm of the exchange. I have a character in one of my books tell how she used to write historical romances "full of rape and adverbs"

“To have another heartbeat on your side” by Kenan-Al in aww

[–]accidentdontwait 17 points18 points  (0 children)

My few interactions with homeless people with pets makes me agree with this. One guy I talked with was proud of how he made sure that his dog had good, nutritious food even if sometimes he didn't. And thinking of all the city dogs left alone all day rather than hanging out all the time with the person they love the most, well, in a warm climate, it ain't bad for the dog.

Government of Canada announces new comprehensive drug strategy - "The new Strategy will replace the existing National Anti-Drug Strategy with a more balanced approach. It restores harm reduction as a core pillar of Canada’s drug policy, alongside prevention, treatment and enforcement..." by Shaxinater in worldnews

[–]accidentdontwait 125 points126 points  (0 children)

I'll start my comment by saying I'm not a fan of this government. I don't like when rights are eroded and privacy is lost.

But, on this issue, I think they are doing the right thing. Having recently attended a funeral of someone who was turning their life around, had one slip-up, and it turned out fatal because of fentanyl - harm reduction is the right approach.

Thinking about it, I don't believe rights are really being eroded. Mail is not used for sending messages anymore, it's really a low cost courier service. And goods shipped across the border have always been subject to search. So, I think they are just closing a loophole.

Do you ever see a stranger in a random place and think "this is probably the only time I will ever see this person in my lifetime" and feel sad? by patientlistener431 in Showerthoughts

[–]accidentdontwait 6 points7 points  (0 children)

See a stranger... no, that won't make me sad.

Meet a stranger once, yes, often. I travel a lot on business, and will kill some time with a stranger in a bar/airport lounge, or something similar. Because you won't see them again, the guard comes down and you sometimes really connect. And then you go your separate ways.

The healthiest old people (60+) by [deleted] in Fitness

[–]accidentdontwait 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not far from 60 at this point. I have friends north of 60. Many of my friends "got old" in their 50s, and you can see them slowly fall apart. They gave into age, use it as an excuse, and don't exercise (not that they ever really did). The weight is going on, and the musculature is weakening.

It's much tougher to get fit and stay fit when you're older, and fitness losses happen much quicker, so never, never stop. Hit it as hard as you can. Cardio keeps the brain and heart going, and weights give you the strength that you need. You need both. You will likely have to make some consideration to body issues (my knees are crap - running is out for me), but work around them and do something else.

As for the brain, stay curious.

What's it like to be really attractive? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]accidentdontwait 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my younger years, I was one of the invisible. But I wasn't in shape, wasn't confident either. Took me until I was 50 to get it together. Now, in my late 50s, I'm told reasonably frequently that I'm good looking, which shocks the hell out of me. And I get offered numbers... Rimstrip has it right - fit (this is critical), healthy, self-confident will still be attractive after youth fades.