LETTING THE EXPERTS DECIDE? (UNPLEASANT TREATMENT)
I am saying that many practitioners who specialise in treating cancer routinely advise unpleasant treatment that is unlikely to produce any substantial benefit and that they persist in recommending various anti-cancer treatments right to the bitter end. These practitioners seem unable to recognise any point when the possible benefit for the person with cancer is too small to justify the ‘cost’ for the person with cancer of starting or continuing further treatment. I emphasise the words ‘for the person with cancer’ because I believe this is the key to understanding this behaviour. And let’s face it—the sorts of behaviour I have described could seem crazy to any observer with a bit of commonsense who knows what the treatments involve and how unlikely they are to produce any real benefit.
I believe the basic problem is that these practitioners do not act according to what is best for their individual patients. They behave like a conceited general whose soldiers are people with cancer, whose weapons are anti-cancer treatments and whose enemies are cancer and death. The general can observe the battles from a safe vantage point on a nearby mountain top. His aim is to win the battle, not to do what is best for his individual soldiers. Even when the odds are overwhelming and defeat certain, he refuses to give the order to surrender. The soldiers are not kept informed of the stage the battle is at nor given the opportunity to decide for themselves to surrender. The general will not order a surrender because this would mean admitting to his soldiers and to himself that he is not all-powerful and that he cannot control the enemy. He would rather that his soldiers die in battle than that they realise that there are limits to his power.
*129/40/1*
