prostate cancer

With such widespread diseases as prostate and various other forms of cancer, there are concerns which eventually arise about the treatments and tests for such illnesses. Because such illnesses are so prevalent in developed countries, diseases like cancers and diabetes are widely studied by research institutions all over the world in hopes that there will be better cures and quicker tests to determine if someone has the illness or not. However, by developing such treatments, preventative measures and genetic tests, people fall into the problem of what constitutes morality. For illnesses like prostate cancer, morality is on the verge of being sent to the wayside in an effort to allow high risk individuals to be tested for the prostate cancer gene long before they reach the age in which prostate cancer will spring up within their bodies.

Perhaps the biggest debate over prostate cancer morality is whether or not scientists should develop early screening tests for the illness in high risk patients. Due to the extremely high genetic correlation between those affected by prostate cancer and the probability of their children getting the disease when they are older, a genetic test would be an excellent way to help people realize if they will have prostate cancer in the future or not.

Unfortunately for the technologies which could ultimately screen for prostate cancer, morality soon enters the debate. If people find out when they are young that they will have a high risk for prostate cancer at age sixty or so, they may have a slightly traumatic experience growing up and feeling that they will die at around age sixty especially if there is no cure for prostate cancer by that time. Furthermore, they would have difficulty finding health insurance as no self respecting insurance agency will want to insure a person who will be catching a costly disease at age sixty. These are two major concerns from a point of prostate cancer morality.

On the opposite side of the argument, however, people who say that prostate cancer morality should take a back seat to scientific advancement proclaim the benefits of early genetic testing. People should be aware of the status of their health. If more people were to receive blood tests to determine if they are at risk for prostate cancer, they would go get more prostate exams which would in turn lower the mortality rate for prostate cancer. After all, it is pretty difficult for those who support prostate cancer morality to argue against less people dying.

The whole battle between prostate cancer morality and the necessary science to help cure people will certainly turn into a raging debate in the future. Ultimately, the outcome will determine how well we handle other emerging diseases and whether or not we will do whatever it takes to combat them.

Prostate cancer as one of the most common types of cancer in men according to the American Cancer Society. Fortunately if caught early, the prognosis is good. Even better than treating it, is of course, avoiding it altogether. The search for the cause of prostate cancer is ongoing and a recent study was recently completed.

An eight year study of 29,361 men has just been completed. The study examined the impact of antioxidant supplements on the rate of prostate cancer. “There has been definite interest in their use, based on a few earlier studies that have been done” said lead researcher Richard B. Hayes, senior investigator in the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

Reporting in the Feb. 15 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Hayes’ team calculated the risk of prostate cancer for 29,361 men aged 55 to 74, all of whom were participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Screening Trial.

Some of the data that was analyzed included the amount of common antioxidant supplements including vitamin C, beta carotene, and vitamin E. Some of the men had been taking these supplements for many years prior to the study.

Over the total eight year study period, 1,338 men developed prostate cancer. The results indicate that the use of antioxidant supplements had no positive impact on the risk for prostate cancer for most nonsmokers. Beta carotene supplements did have a positive impact among men that had low dietary intake of beta carotene.

Vitamin E did have a positive impact for smokers according to the research. This was consistent with previous trials.
Although the three supplements studied in this trial showed little help in preventing prostate cancer, previous trials that examined other supplements did show very encouraging results.

Fish oils, which contain EPA and DHA, were found to reduce prostate cancer by 11% in men that consumed about 470 mg./day. Selenium has been found to cut prostate cancer in half. Over five clinical trials have supported this. It is recommended that men take a 200 micrograms of selenium daily.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among American men after skin cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Based on this statistic, most people might assume that the majority of American men are well educated about how best to fight prostate cancer, where to turn for more information and what support group an uncle or golf buddy relied on during their respective battles with the disease.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. While women regularly host breast cancer awareness and fund-raising walks across the country, men have been less proactive on matters related to their health, including essential measures such as soliciting second opinions and researching treatment options. The result of this passive approach is that the average man does not always make good, informed decisions about his own health care.

A new program is encouraging men to alter their approach to health care, at least when it comes to battling prostate cancer. Us TOO International Prostate Cancer Education and Support Network, along with Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization, have founded the “Partner’s Program” to help men with prostate cancer and their partners face the diagnosis together, encourage them to seek information regarding treatment options, and ultimately, make more well-informed treatment decisions.

This program clearly responds to an unmet need. Recently, an Us TOO- and Y-ME-commissioned survey found that, although the majority of men with prostate cancer have heard of both surgery and radiation as treatment options, up to 38 percent don’t know that other treatments, such as hormonal therapy, even exist. Even more alarming, less than 50 percent of men with prostate cancer take the time to get a second opinion on their diagnosis or proposed treatment. These facts are sure to concern anyone who loves a man at risk of developing prostate cancer.

The good news for wives and partners is the survey found that men don’t want to face prostate cancer treatment choices alone, making a resource like the “Partner’s Program” attractive for both men and women. While men are not typically as open as women on subjects such as prostate cancer, the survey found that almost 70 percent of men age 50 and older indicated that they would like their partner to play an active role in the process of choosing an appropriate course of therapy.

Now, with the help of the “Partner’s Program,” the average American man may become more proactive about his health.