Posted 8/16/2019 11:34 AM (GMT -7)
Yes, he really did say that to me at my annual general physical a few weeks ago.
We had been talking about my health situation in general, so naturally the subject of ongoing monitoring of my PCa status came up, and we chatted about that for a while. I was reviewing my Dx, RT treatment, my experience with Lupron, etc. Apparently I was throwing out a lot of technical details about all of that, and it prompted him to make the comment that he did.
Frankly, I was very surprised when he said that. I have never and still don't consider myself really all that well informed about my experience with the beast, despite years of, at first, Dx and treatment, then extensive reading about it for even more years, including learning a great deal about it right here on this forum.
Or maybe I really am rather well informed! Maybe we all are, when you think about it!
Maybe in the course of finding out more and more technical information about our various situations, PCa being at the center of all of them, we really have become unusually and especially knowledgable people, even in comparison with a family medicine doctor, who likely is not as "specialized" in PCa as we are.
It's something I hadn't really thought about all that much, but maybe it really is true that collectively we here really are a very knowledgable bunch on the subject of PCa.
There's no question that's true when comparing us to the public at large, but is it also so when we are matched against some types of M.D.'s as well? Well, perhaps it is at that. Maybe we need to realize that and give ourselves some credit for it.
Which brings to mind another aspect of learning about this illness and gaining knowledge about it, and becoming so well informed, which I believe should also be addressed here: evaluation of information sources.
When we do learn more and more about PCa, we do need to make sure that our sources, especially those on the web, are indeed accurate.
Yes, accurate information is everything. For example, a certain person on this forum has seen fit lately to try and take me to task on the grounds that, his implied suggestion anyway, I had allowed inaccuracy to creep into a post or two I had made. Actually, when I went back and reviewed the matter, I saw it was not the case that I had done so.
But his claim did make me realize that, on the contrary to what he was suggesting, most of us here on this forum are going to be extremely careful in our collection of data, and go well out of our way to insure it is correct. There is a major reason why this is true. Namely, because
our lives depend on it!
Think about it. How many times during the past few years have you had to choose a treatment, a doctor, a medication, a facility, and all such things, with the understanding, perhaps more at a subconscious level than we realize, that if we got it wrong, the consequences of making such a wrong choice might empower the beast, and actually lead to a shortening of our lives?
We all know what's at stake when we do our research and apply the results we find to our situations. Get it right and we very well may be improving our survival odds. Get it wrong and maybe we do just the opposite.
Yes, yes, the web can be full of inaccuracies, yes, it can be full of medical nonsense, false cures, etc., etc., etc.
But it's also very reasonable to assume that most of us already know that and we are always very, very careful in making sure the information we collect, especially from the web, is accurate.
Because our lives truly do depend on it.
So we don't need to be preached to about it. We already know what's at stake.