Exposing Oncology

You'll remember from reading Part 6, that I wasn't happy avoiding the issues I had discovered regarding the use of BSA calculation without TDM and so I decided to write to the Chief Exec of The Christie. The Chief Exec eventually sent his reply to my letters and a very carefully crafted reply it is too. I would have been proud of it myself, had I written it! It is a perfect lesson in how to look as if you are saying something meaningful, when you aren’t. It is a lesson in how to look like you are addressing the points made, but aren’t. It’s a wonderful piece of obfuscation! Well done Mr Spencer, you are a Jedi Master of avoidance LOL! You can read his response below, with my comments about his responses, in red: So, to date, no one at The Christie is prepared to fully or directly answer my questions. Should I assume that is because they think I am talking rubbish and don't want to tell me that for fear of offending me, or is it because I have hit a n

You will remember from reading Part 5 of our story, that Sheila had wanted to try for another two cycles of Oxaliplatin, but in the event, the neuropathy from the sixth round of chemotherapy didn’t disappear before the seventh round was due, so we all decided that 6 cycles of Oxaliplatin was enough for Sheila after all. With regards to the 5-FU, even though we had reached a deal with Sheila’s oncologist that had given him a way out from recognising our result that showed he was over-dosing her, something just didn’t feel right about the accommodation we had reached with him. We shouldn’t have to avoid the issue and do a deal with him; he should be providing dose monitoring and adjustment as part of the chemo he was giving Sheila. This just wasn’t right. Thinking it over, I realised that perhaps I was aiming my concerns at the wrong audience. Maybe clinical oncologists don’t have the authority to change what they do, even if they wanted to. I decided to take the issue

I thought I'd share a more lighthearted view of our journey to date this week as well, but you should follow this week's blog first, so this makes sense to you. When Sheila first had her operation last July, we needed to keep our family and friends informed of her progress and to let them all communicate with her easily because they are scattered around the world, so we set up a Facebook group called Paloma the Stoma where I first shared this little story: A Short Story The husband of a cancer patient found out how chemotherapy is given in the UK. He found out that the dose is worked out before treatment starts, in a very old fashioned way that’s not really great. He then found out what a teeny-tiny therapeutic range chemotherapy drugs have. Too little  and they do no good, in fact, it’s worse than that, too little and not only do they do no good, they positively increase the chance of your cancer coming back and still make you feel bad anyway. Too muc

Simply put: he couldn’t, or more accurately, wouldn’t. He had my letter with him, with the lab report stapled to the back of it. He said he hadn’t carried out the test so he wasn’t able to recognise it and even if he did recognise it, it didn’t fit in with what he was allowed to do; it didn’t fit his “pathway”, he said. OMG, I thought - that was the whole point of getting the test done ourselves; he had already refused to do it and here we are offering him direct proof that he was mis-dosing my wife that he didn’t normally have and he was refusing to even recognise it, let alone act upon it!  I thought the top of my head was about to come off! Let me at him! As I opened my mouth to give him the benefit of my thoughts, he held up his hand and said “there are, of course, a number of other reasons I could use to reduce the dose”. At that point, I thought I should shut up and listen. He said that if Sheila’s side effects were bad enough, he could reduce the dose, or