Jack, dare I ask, what is YOUR history? Are you a surgery patient? And what happened? I've never seen you actually tell YOUR story. I assume you have one. If you did back in your early days on the forum, I wasn't here then.
Yes. (and yes, you may ask)
Here's one of my posts from a thread you participated in:
It's difficult to engage in conversations about overtreatment and AS with men who had favorable risk cases and have already been aggressively treated for reasons I have already commented on in this thread.
I feel that I was overtreated, and I don't want to hear that I screwed up...but when I look back in hindsight today, I understand that I simply was not exposed to good information for making the best decision. I can't change that for me, but I can help the next (low risk) brother through the door who sounds like he's also got the fear of the "big 'C'" in his eyes.
In my case, and probably a lot of others like mine, I thought I had done thorough "due diligence." But in reality, all I had looked at (albeit thoroughly) was the set of aggressive treatments. My so-called "due diligence" was incomplete. I never looked seriously, and nobody ever suggested that I look at active surveillance.
Here's another one you also participated in:
I was overtreated. I did not need immediate treatment, but there I was six months after diagnosis undergoing aggressive, life-changing surgery. Surgery by a darn good surgeon, but unnecessary at the time none the less. NOBODY helped me think of anything else except getting the best treatment possible. Maybe someday my case might have changed to the point where treatment was appropriate. This DOES occur to about 1/3 of the men on AS...but NOT for 2/3. And those 1/3 who do go on to treatment, they have the same outcomes as those who go for immediate threatment. In other words, NO CONSEQUENCES.
And I was foolish. I spent my "due diligence" time researching treatment modes, not learning about scientific facts about the actual risks. I knee-jerk reacted to the word "cancer," which probably shouldn't be applied to favorable-risk cases such as mine. A term like "pre-cancer" would have been so much more appropriate, for me and so many other men, in not causing us all to fall down the slippery slope. Once you are "labeled" with the term CANCER, you get hustled down the path of treatment, then treatment for the treatments, etc. I was foolish...and I thought at the time I had done "due diligence."
OK, I didn't provide many details in those cases. Here's what I posted in late 2014:
Uh...I'm not afraid to admit openly that I was overtreated.
I had a couple cores positive; none had very much PC. One was 3+4, others were 3+3. My PSA was low; under 10ng/mL.
There have been others here besides me who have also stood up to confess that they were overtreated for favorable-risk PC. It's certainly nothing to be ashamed of. If I can help others be better informed than I was before treatment, I'll feel like it wasn't all for nothing...otherwise, I kinda do.
Here's how I generalized in another 2014 posting:
I had surgery for favorable-risk PC, so the way I describe it to people when asked:
"I was overtreated by an over-zealous medical industry, and with almost complete certainty I will never have to deal with prostate cancer again."