ReportWire

Tag: pancreatic cancer

  • Former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar laid to rest following funeral services

    ByABC7 Chicago Digital Team

    Saturday, September 20, 2025 10:21PM

    Former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar laid to rest following funeral

    Former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar died after a pancreatic cancer battle. He was laid to rest after a Central Baptist Church service in Springfield.

    Copyright © 2025 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    WLS

    Source link

  • Beloved Rhode Island judge Frank Caprio, known for his compassionate rulings, dies at 88

    Frank Caprio, a retired municipal judge in Rhode Island who found online fame as a caring jurist and host of “ Caught in Providence,” has died. He was 88. Caprio lost his fight with pancreatic cancer, according to a post from Caprio’s verified Facebook page.Last week, Caprio posted a short video on Facebook about how he had “a setback,” was back in the hospital and was asking that people “remember me in your prayers.”Caprio was first elected a judge in 1985, but became famous after many videos of his interactions with people in court went viral as they shared their personal stories with him.Caprio was known for his compassionate heart and humility toward those around him.Caprio’s show was filmed in his courtroom and featured his folksy humor and compassion. Clips from the show have had more than 1 billion views on social media.During his time on the bench, Caprio developed a persona at odds with many TV judges — more sympathetic and less confrontational and judgmental.In his bite-sized segments on YouTube, Caprio is often seen empathizing with those in his courtroom. Many of the infractions are also relatively minor, from failing to use a turn signal to a citation for a loud party.Caprio also used his fame to address issues like unequal access to the judicial system.“The phrase, ‘With liberty and justice for all’ represents the idea that justice should be accessible to everyone. However it is not,” Caprio said in one video. “Almost 90% of low-income Americans are forced to battle civil issues like health care, unjust evictions, veterans benefits and, yes, even traffic violations, alone.”Caprio’s upbeat take on the job of a judge drew him millions of views. His most popular videos have been those where he calls children to the bench to help pass judgment on their parents. One shows him listening sympathetically to a woman whose son was killed and then dismissing her tickets and fines of $400.In another clip, after dismissing a red-light violation for a bartender who was making $3.84 per hour, Caprio urged those watching the video not to duck out on their bills.“If anyone’s watching I want them to know you better not eat and run because you’re going to get caught and the poor people who are working hard all day for three bucks an hour are going to have to pay your bill,” he said.His fame reached as far as China, where clips of his show have been uploaded to social media in recent years. Some fans there posted about his death, recalling and praising the humanity he showed in his rulings.His family described Caprio “as a devoted husband, father, grandfather, great grandfather and friend.”“Beloved for his compassion, humility, and unwavering belief in the goodness of people, Judge Caprio touched the lives of millions through his work in the courtroom and beyond,” the family wrote online. “His warmth, humor, and kindness left an indelible mark on all who knew him.”State and local politicians mourned his passing and celebrated his life.“Judge Caprio not only served the public well, but he connected with them in a meaningful way, and people could not help but respond to his warmth and compassion,” Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee said in a statement. “He was more than a jurist — he was a symbol of empathy on the bench, showing us what is possible when justice is tempered with humanity.”Robert Leonard, who co-owned a restaurant with Caprio, said he was “going to be sorely missed” and was “all around wonderful.”“There is nothing he wouldn’t do for you if he could do it,” Leonard said.Caprio retired from Providence Municipal Court in 2023 after nearly four decades on the bench.According to his biography, Caprio came from humble beginnings, the second of three boys growing up in the Federal Hill neighborhood of Providence, Rhode Island.“I hope that people will take away that the institutions of government can function very well by exercising kindness, fairness, and compassion in their deliberations. We live in a very contentious society,” he said in 2017. “I would hope that people will see that we can dispense justice without being oppressive.”

    Frank Caprio, a retired municipal judge in Rhode Island who found online fame as a caring jurist and host of “ Caught in Providence,” has died. He was 88.

    Caprio lost his fight with pancreatic cancer, according to a post from Caprio’s verified Facebook page.

    Last week, Caprio posted a short video on Facebook about how he had “a setback,” was back in the hospital and was asking that people “remember me in your prayers.”

    Caprio was first elected a judge in 1985, but became famous after many videos of his interactions with people in court went viral as they shared their personal stories with him.

    Caprio was known for his compassionate heart and humility toward those around him.

    Caprio’s show was filmed in his courtroom and featured his folksy humor and compassion. Clips from the show have had more than 1 billion views on social media.

    During his time on the bench, Caprio developed a persona at odds with many TV judges — more sympathetic and less confrontational and judgmental.

    In his bite-sized segments on YouTube, Caprio is often seen empathizing with those in his courtroom. Many of the infractions are also relatively minor, from failing to use a turn signal to a citation for a loud party.

    Caprio also used his fame to address issues like unequal access to the judicial system.

    “The phrase, ‘With liberty and justice for all’ represents the idea that justice should be accessible to everyone. However it is not,” Caprio said in one video. “Almost 90% of low-income Americans are forced to battle civil issues like health care, unjust evictions, veterans benefits and, yes, even traffic violations, alone.”

    Caprio’s upbeat take on the job of a judge drew him millions of views. His most popular videos have been those where he calls children to the bench to help pass judgment on their parents. One shows him listening sympathetically to a woman whose son was killed and then dismissing her tickets and fines of $400.

    In another clip, after dismissing a red-light violation for a bartender who was making $3.84 per hour, Caprio urged those watching the video not to duck out on their bills.

    “If anyone’s watching I want them to know you better not eat and run because you’re going to get caught and the poor people who are working hard all day for three bucks an hour are going to have to pay your bill,” he said.

    His fame reached as far as China, where clips of his show have been uploaded to social media in recent years. Some fans there posted about his death, recalling and praising the humanity he showed in his rulings.

    His family described Caprio “as a devoted husband, father, grandfather, great grandfather and friend.”

    “Beloved for his compassion, humility, and unwavering belief in the goodness of people, Judge Caprio touched the lives of millions through his work in the courtroom and beyond,” the family wrote online. “His warmth, humor, and kindness left an indelible mark on all who knew him.”

    State and local politicians mourned his passing and celebrated his life.

    “Judge Caprio not only served the public well, but he connected with them in a meaningful way, and people could not help but respond to his warmth and compassion,” Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee said in a statement. “He was more than a jurist — he was a symbol of empathy on the bench, showing us what is possible when justice is tempered with humanity.”

    Robert Leonard, who co-owned a restaurant with Caprio, said he was “going to be sorely missed” and was “all around wonderful.”

    “There is nothing he wouldn’t do for you if he could do it,” Leonard said.

    Caprio retired from Providence Municipal Court in 2023 after nearly four decades on the bench.

    According to his biography, Caprio came from humble beginnings, the second of three boys growing up in the Federal Hill neighborhood of Providence, Rhode Island.

    “I hope that people will take away that the institutions of government can function very well by exercising kindness, fairness, and compassion in their deliberations. We live in a very contentious society,” he said in 2017. “I would hope that people will see that we can dispense justice without being oppressive.”

    Source link

  • Trump Sends Support To Kid Rock After His Father Passes Away

    Trump Sends Support To Kid Rock After His Father Passes Away

    Opinion

    Source: Fox News YouTube

    The patriotic singer Kid Rock suffered a devastating loss last week when his beloved father Bill Ritchie, Sr. passed away at the age of 82. Afterwards, Kid Rock’s good friend Donald Trump spoke out to send him a touching message of support.

    Kid Rock’s Father Passes Away

    Kid Rock took to X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, last Friday to announce his father’s death.

    “My Dad, Bill Ritchie Sr, moved on to be with Jesus yesterday,” he wrote. “He was an incredible father, grandfather, great grandfather, and so much more, none shy of being quite the character!”

    “God Bless you and I love you Pop!,” he added before signing off with his real name, “Bob Ritchie.”

    The Detroit Free Press reported that Ritchie died peacefully at his home in Florida after a 14 year battle with prostate cancer. He was a prominent metro Detroit auto dealer who was known as a power player with the Detroit Auto Dealers Association (DADA), once serving as the organization’s regional representative to the National Automobile Dealers Association.

    “He was spellbinding in a meeting. He was an inspirational speaker. His son inherited that,” said Rod Alberts, current DADA executive director. “I thought the world of him.”

    Related: Kid Rock Pays Tribute To His Friend Toby Keith After He Dies At 62

    Trump Pays Tribute To Ritchie

    After Ritchie’s death was announced, the former President Trump took to his Truth Social platform to pay tribute to him.

    “Bill Ritchie, Sr., the wonderful father of Bob, sometimes referred to as Kid Rock, recently passed away after a long and brave fight with a nasty competitor, cancer,” Trump wrote. “I got to know Bill very well over the last three years, and he was something special, a very successful guy, but family was far more important than that success.”

    “He was a fabulous father, grandfather, and great grandfather, but also, a man with tremendous vision, talent, and style, and a real character!” Trump continued. “My condolences to the whole family. Bill will be greatly missed.”

    Kid Rock soon responded to Trump by thanking him for his support.

    “Thank you Mr. President,” Kid Rock said in a Truth Social post of his own. “He was a huge supporter as you know, loved what you stand for, and always looked forward to spending time with you.”

    “Many will never get to know you like I have on a personal / friendship level, but let this be a testament to how great a man, father and friend you are! God Bless you and RIP Dad,” he added, this timing signing off with his stage name “Kid Rock.”

    Related: Trump And Kid Rock Attend Covington’s UFC 296 Loss – Fighter Compares It To 2020 Election Defeat

    Kid Rock’s Friendship With Trump

    Kid Rock has long been one of the only celebrities to publicly stand by Trump, and the two of them have developed a close personal friendship. Back in December, Kid Rock described Trump as the “Toughest son of a b**** on Earth.”

    “He’s doing great, he’s incredible,” Kid Rock continued, according to WPDE. “I love spending time with him, getting to know him. I think if you look at his track record and who he is as a whole, there’s a lot more good there than anything.”

    We applaud Trump for reaching out to his friend Kid Rock as he grieves the devastating loss of his father. Please join us in saying a prayer for Kid Rock and his family during this difficult time.

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    An Ivy leaguer, proud conservative millennial, history lover, writer, and lifelong New Englander, James specializes in the intersection of… More about James Conrad

    James Conrad

    Source link

  • Pancreatic Cancer And Chemo And CBD

    Pancreatic Cancer And Chemo And CBD

    Out of all types of cancers that exist, which type do you think is one of the hardest to beat? On a worldwide scale, pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest forms of cancer in regards to overall survival rates.  Now research has given a small ray of hope for pancreatic cancer and chemo and CBD.

    According to the American Cancer Society, amongst the combination of all stages of pancreatic cancer, the survival rate for one-year is 20%, and the survival rate for five years is under seven percent. Although certain cancer treatments are commonly used such as chemotherapy and radiation, in a recent study, it has been found that the combination of chemotherapy and cannabidiol (CBD) treatments have led to significant pancreatic cancer survival rates.

    Research Findings on Cannabidiol (CBD) and Chemotherapy Cancer Treatments

    In the recent study mentioned above, mice that were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer received CBD administration alongside chemotherapy treatments. As a result of this combination, it was discovered that the mice with CBD and chemotherapy treatments survived close to three times longer than the mice that were only treated with chemotherapy.

    RELATED: Marijuana As Treatment For Prostate Cancer: Here’s What Doctors Know

    Photo by sudok1/Getty Images

    In general, this study’s findings provide more valid reasoning for human testing. Although this study hasn’t been conducted on humans yet, the released results demonstrate the need to further investigate and study cannabis compounds, especially CBD.

    Grim Pancreatic Cancer Survival Rates

    Overall, pancreatic cancer is the twelfth most common cancer on a worldwide scale. Also, the highest occurrence of this type of cancer is in developed countries. Unfortunately, the overall survival rate for pancreatic cancer is quite grim. In particular, Marco Falasca, a lead researcher at Queen Mary University of London stated the following about the life expectancy of pancreatic cancer:

    “The life expectancy for pancreatic cancer patients has barely changed in the last 40 years because there are very few, and mostly only palliative care treatments available. Given the five-year survival rate for people with pancreatic cancer is less than seven percent, the discovery of new treatments and therapeutic strategies is urgently needed.”

    With this being said, due to the recent results derived from the mice study, there’s a strong need to further examine CBD and its potential in treating different types of cancer, especially pancreatic.

    Cannabidiol’s Medicinal and Anti-cancer Properties

    When it comes to CBD, thus far, it has been found that it’s an extremely medically beneficial cannabinoid, and it contains both anti-tumoral and neuroprotective properties, which can help those who have been diagnosed with cancer. However, CBD has also demonstrated its anti-nausea and antiemetic (anti-vomiting) properties. These properties have proven to be very effective for those undergoing chemotherapy and other cancer-related therapies. Additionally, Cannabidiol has been found to improve the side effects caused by chemotherapy, especially vomiting, nausea, and pain.

    If human testing is conducted on the combined topic of pancreatic cancer, CBD, and chemotherapy treatments, this would build upon past animal research findings. Specifically, one study discovered CBD’s possible anti-cancer properties, and another study found CBD to be a potential anti-cancer drug.

    Ask Dr. Green: How Can I Use Marijuana To Deal With Chemotherapy?
    Photo by Caiaimage/Sam Edwards/Getty Images

    Legality of CBD in the United States and the United Kingdom

    Moreover, due to the cannabis legality differences between America and the United Kingdom, it’s likely that the conduction of human trials with a focus on CBD would progress faster in the UK than in the U.S. The reason for this is because currently, the cannabis plant remains a Schedule I illegal substance in the U.S., and CBD is a cannabinoid found in the cannabis plant. Whereas, in the UK, CBD has been approved for usage and research purposes.

    RELATED: Cannabis Flavonoid Could Provide Breakthrough Treatment Against Pancreatic Cancer

    Therefore, researchers and scientists based in England can legally test this cannabinoid in human clinical trials, according to Dr. Falasca. Nonetheless, the U.S. is progressing slowly but surely, especially because the U.S. FDA recently approved of a CBD-based drug called Epidiolex for the treatment of epilepsy. This specific drug approval was a significant move since it’s the first U.S. FDA-approved drug that contains a cannabinoid derived from cannabis.

    Overall, since pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest forms of cancer, it would be in the general public’s best interest to have access to a natural form of medicine for cancer treatments such as CBD rather than just chemotherapy and radiation. Due to the noteworthy results that were released from the mice study discussed above, it’s likely that Cannabidiol will be further studied and investigated moving forward, especially for cancer treatment purposes.

    Nicole Skrobin

    Source link

  • How Do I Make Sense of My Mother’s Decision to Die?

    How Do I Make Sense of My Mother’s Decision to Die?

    My mom could always leap into the coldest water. Every summer when we visited my grandma in upstate New York, my mom dove straight into the freezing lake, even when the temperature outdoors hit the 50s. The dogs, who usually trailed her everywhere, would whine in protest before paddling after her, and the iciness left her breathless when she surfaced. “Just jump, Lil,” she’d yell to me, laughing, before swimming off to vanish into the distance.

    But I never could. I didn’t think much about that difference between us, until I flew north to be with her on the day she’d chosen to die.

    When my mom found out in May last year that she had pancreatic cancer, the surgeon and the oncologist explained to our family that cutting out her tumor might extend her prognosis by about a year; chemotherapy could tack on another six months. A few days later, my mom asked if we could spend time together in Seattle over the summer, if we could get lemonade at the coffee shop while I was there, if I wanted to play Scrabble before I left. “Yeah, of course,” I said. “But—” She interrupted me: “I’m not getting surgery.”

    After a decade of Parkinson’s disease, my mom already experienced frequent periods of uncontrolled writhing and many hours spent nearly paralyzed in bed. That illness wounded her the way losing vision might pain a photographer: Throughout her life, she had reveled in physicality, working as a park caretaker, ship builder, and costume designer. Now, plagued by a neurological disorder that would only worsen, she didn’t want to also endure postoperative wounds, vomiting from chemo, and the gloved hands of strangers hefting her onto a bedpan after surgery. Nor did she want to wait for the pain cancer could inflict. Instead, my mom said, she planned to request a prescription under Washington’s Death With Dignity Act, which allows doctors, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners to provide lethal drugs for self-administration to competent adult residents with six months or less to live.

    As a doctor myself, I’ve confronted plenty of death, yet I still found myself at a loss over how to react to my mom’s choice. I know that the American tropes of illness—“battling to the end,” “hoping for a miracle,” being “a fighter”—often do harm. In clinical training, none of us wanted to unleash the fury of modern medicine upon a 98-year-old with cancer who’d just lost his pulse, but we all inflicted some version of it: ramming his purpled breastbone against his stilled heart, sending electricity jagging through his chest, and breaching his throat, blood vessels, and penis with tubes, only to watch him die days later. I didn’t want that for my mom; I had no desire for her to cling futilely to life.

    And yet, even though it shamed me, I couldn’t deny feeling unnerved by my mom’s choice. I understood why she’d made it, but I still ruminated over alternate scenarios in which she gave chemo a shot or tried out home hospice. Though her certainty was comforting, I was also devastated about losing her, and uneasy about how soon after a new diagnosis she might die.

    My mom had made her end-of-life wishes known by the time I was in fifth grade. Our rental home still held the owners’ books, among them Final Exit, a 1991 guide for dying people to end their lives. The author dispensed step-by-step advice on how to carry out your own death, at a time when nothing like the Death With Dignity Act existed in any state. When I found the book, my mom snatched it away. But months later, after her best friend died of brain cancer, she asked if I remembered it.

    “If I ever get really sick, Lil,” she said, “I don’t plan to suffer for a long time just to die in the end anyhow. I would take my life before it gets to that point, like in that book. Just so you know.”

    After her Parkinson’s diagnosis, my mom moved across the country to Washington, mostly to be near my sister, but also because in 2008, it became only the second state to approve lethal prescriptions for the terminally ill. Since then, despite much contention, the District of Columbia and eight more states have followed—including California, where I live and practice medicine. No dying patient of mine had ever requested the drugs, so I didn’t think much about the laws. Then my mom got cancer, and suddenly, the controversies ceased to be abstract.

    Proponents of aid-in-dying laws tend to say that helping very sick patients die when they want to is compassionate and justified, because people of sound mind should be free to decide when their illnesses have become unbearable. Access to lethal medications (which many recipients never end up using) lets them concentrate on their remaining life. I sympathize: I’ve seen patients who, despite palliative care, suffered irremediable existential or physical pain that they could escape only with sedating doses of narcotics.

    But I grasped the other side of the argument as well: that self-determination has limits. Aid-in-dying opponents have said that doctors who hasten death violate the Hippocratic Oath. Although I disagree with these moral objections, I do share some of the antagonists’ policy concerns. Many worry that state laws will expand to encompass children and the mentally ill, as they do in countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands. They argue that a nation that still devalues disabled people needs to invest in care, rather than permit death and open up the risk of coercion. So far, Americans who have used these laws have been overwhelmingly white and college-educated. But I could imagine patients of mine requesting death for suffering that’s been amplified by their poverty or uninsurance.

    These policies are so polarizing that people can’t even agree on language. Detractors refer to “assisted suicide,” or even murder, while supporters prefer medical “aid-in-dying,” which I’ll use, because it’s less charged. But I don’t much like either term, and neither did my mom. She was already dying, so she didn’t think of her death as suicide. Nor would she accept a passive term such as aid-in-dying, when she was the one taking action. Lacking any suitable word, she settled on a phrase that felt stark but honest. “When I kill myself,” she’d say. When she killed herself, we should give her spice rack to a friend. When she killed herself, we shouldn’t hold a funeral, because that would be depressing. Her tone was always matter-of-fact. My stomach always somersaulted.

    That summer, I read constantly about aid-in-dying—accounts of its use in Switzerland, essays in American medical journals, articles written by people who’d lost a loved one that way. I was the exception in our family. My mom was concerned with bigger issues, like whether the ice-cream shop would restock the lemon flavor before she died. My sister thought I was overintellectualizing things—and she was right. Sometimes we do the only thing we know how to, to keep from falling apart.

    So I kept looking for the solace of stories that felt as complicated as my own thoughts. They were remarkably rare. To me, loving my mom meant acknowledging my own hesitation yet still respecting her measure of the unendurable. Juggling these emotions felt nuanced, but most of what I read didn’t. So many narratives cast aid-in-dying as either an abomination or the epitome of virtue, in which a dying person could be rewarded for courageous serenity with a perfect death.

    Another daughter whose mother pursued aid-in-dying spoke in a TED Talk of the “design challenge” to “rebrand” death as “honest, noble, and brave.” But however tantalizing the prospect, the promise that we can scrub death of ugliness felt dangerously dishonest. Death can be wrenching and awful no matter where and how it happens: on a ventilator in an intensive-care unit, on morphine in hospice, or with a lethal prescription at home, surrounded by family. Being able to control death doesn’t mean we can perfect it.

    The myth of the “good death”—graceful and unsullied, beatific even—has infiltrated the human subconscious since at least the 15th century, when the Ars Moriendi, Christian treatises on the art of dying, proliferated in Europe. A translation of one version counsels the sick on how to die “gladly.” The moral in these texts bludgeons you: How you die is a referendum on how you lived, with only a picturesque exit guaranteeing repose for the soul.

    The notion has seeped through generations. “I hope if I’m ever in that situation, I’d have the bravery to do that,” one friend said about my mom’s choice. “It’s good she’ll die with her dignity intact,” said another. My mom’s physicians, kind and smart people, seemed so eager to validate her decision that the aid-in-dying criteria distilled to a checklist rather than unfurling into conversation. Even the name of the law my mom intended to use, Death With Dignity, implies that planned death succeeds where other ways of dying don’t. More than half a millennium after the Ars Moriendi, we still seem to believe that you can fail at death itself.

    One doctor told us of a landscape architect who drank the fatal cocktail while exulting in her garden in full bloom. It sounded perfect—except that in all my years as a doctor, I’ve never seen a perfect death. Every time, there’s some flaw: physical discomfort, conversations left unfinished, terror, family conflict, a loved one who didn’t get there in time. Still, my sister and I tried to stage-manage a beautiful death. We booked a cabin in Olympic National Park for my mom’s exit. We would bake her famous olive bread and cook bouillabaisse. We’d wheel her to the beach, then to the towering cedar forest, then massage her feet with almond oil while we talked in front of a woodstove. The fireside conversation would be our parting exchange of gifts, full of meaning, remembrance, and closure.

    As our family waited for that day to come, we kept thinking we should be tearing through a bucket list. Instead, we did what we always had—cooked, played games, read. We just did it with an ever-present sense of countdown, in an apartment where nearly everything would outlive my mom: the succulent on the windowsill, the lasagna in the freezer she made us promise to eat when she was gone.

    My mom did have the lemon ice cream again, but our family never made it to the cabin in the forest. A month before the planned trip—10 weeks after my mom’s diagnosis—the pharmacy compounded the drugs: a mixture of morphine and three others. The bottle was amber, filled with dissolvable powder and labeled with the words No Refills. (“Now that would be a dark Saturday Night Live skit,” my mom told me.) The next morning, a Thursday, she called, dizzy and miserable. She wanted to die ahead of schedule, on Saturday. I got on a plane.

    My mom, my sister’s family, and I spent Friday grilling chicken and drinking good wine. After my older niece painted my mom’s nails lavender with polka dots, the kids and my brother-in-law said their goodbyes and left. The next morning, my sister and I laid out the backyard like a set: a couch swathed in blankets. Tables with plants and photos and huge candlesticks. A stereo to play the music of our childhood and her motherhood.

    But our revised choreography couldn’t erase how horrible my mom felt that morning, dispirited by her disease and deeply exhausted. We had to cajole her not to die in bed. Eventually, she came outside, where we drank peppermint tea and talked about nothing memorable. When the moment came to gulp the bottle’s contents, mixed into lemonade, she didn’t hesitate.

    “You would make the same choice if you were me, right?” she said, setting down the empty bottle. I knew she wasn’t second-guessing. She was ending her time as our mother not out of lack of devotion, but because all other options felt untenable, and she needed confirmation that we knew this.

    “Yes,” my sister said, “I would.”

    “Me too,” I said—but in truth, I didn’t know. Maybe I would have dwindled over months of chemo as I learned to reshape my life in the face of imminent death. Maybe I would have died in hospice, surrendering myself to the fog and mercy of morphine. Maybe I would have stowed the drugs in a cupboard, cradling them occasionally and then, unable to reconcile the simplicity and complexity of that ending, replacing them. Each of these paths would have demanded its own form of courage—just not my mom’s type.

    “I’ll just go to sleep now, right?” she asked.

    “Yeah, Mom, you’ll just go to sleep,” I said. “I love you.”

    My sister and I kissed her forehead, her cheeks, her collarbone. We avoided the poisonous sheen on her lips, where our tears had wet the residue of white powder.

    The aspens rustled, confetti of silver. My mom didn’t cry, and the slightest trace of a smile alighted on her face.

    “Bye,” she said. “You’ve been awesome.”

    And then she dove off the dock. Her lips blued, and when she tried to speak more, the words never surfaced.

    It took her five and a half hours to disappear completely, while my sister and I tamped down growing worries that the drugs hadn’t worked. My mom felt no pain—she couldn’t have, after all that morphine—but her passing wasn’t a fairy tale. Her suffering wasn’t embossed in meaning; she didn’t tile over her bitterness with saintly forbearance. My mom died on the day she was ready and by the means she chose. All of that matters, immensely so. She also died precipitously, far from the forest she’d dreamed of, while my sister and I were left with little closure and a prolonged, confusing death.

    Usually, I write when I’m most upset, but my mom’s death catapulted me into a frightening depth of wordlessness. Weeks passed before I realized that my problem was not that I couldn’t find words at all. It was that I couldn’t tell the tale I felt I was supposed to. In that myth, death has a metric of success, and that metric is beauty. The trouble is that you can’t grieve over a version of events that never happened. You can only grieve over the story you lived, with all of its ambiguities.

    My mom’s death was beautiful. It was also terrible, and fraught. That is to say, it was human.

    Lindsay Ryan

    Source link

  • AI could help predict pancreatic cancer, study finds

    AI could help predict pancreatic cancer, study finds

    AI could help predict pancreatic cancer, study finds – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    A new study finds artificial intelligence could help predict pancreatic cancer. Dr. Chris Sander, one of the co-authors of the study, joined CBS News to talk about the findings.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • Pancreatic Cancer Rates Rising Faster Among Women

    Pancreatic Cancer Rates Rising Faster Among Women

    By Cara Murez 

    HealthDay Reporter

    TUESDAY, Feb. 14, 2023 (HealthDay News) — While rates of pancreatic cancer are increasing for both men and women, they’re climbing the fastest among young women, particularly those who are Black.

    “We can tell that the rate of pancreatic cancer among women is rising rapidly, which calls attention to the need for further research in this area,” said senior study author Dr. Srinivas Gaddam, associate director of Pancreatic Biliary Research at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles. “There’s a need to understand these trends, and to make changes today so this doesn’t affect women disproportionately in the future.”

    The increase is small, however, and shouldn’t be alarming, but future studies will need to examine these trends, Gaddam said.

    “The data shows us a small increase in risk of pancreatic cancer,” he said in a Cedars-Sinai news release. “And that awareness might refocus people on the need to stop smoking, reduce alcohol use, eat a healthy diet, exercise regularly and manage their weight. These lifestyle changes all help decrease the risk of pancreatic cancer.”

     

    In the study, researchers used data from the National Program of Cancer Registries database, which represents approximately 65% of the U.S. population, on patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2001 and 2018.

    The investigators found that rates of pancreatic cancer increased among both women and men.

    But rates among women under the age of 55 rose 2.4% higher than rates among men of the same age. Similar increased rates were observed among older men and women.

     

    And rates among young Black women rose just over 2% higher than among young Black men.

    “And while we’re reporting improving survival in pancreatic cancer each year, that improvement is largely among men,” Gaddam added. “The mortality rate among women is not improving.”

    Reasons may include the type and location of tumors.

    Rates of pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, which is an especially aggressive and deadly type of tumor situated at the head of the pancreas, appear to be increasing, according to the study.

    The job of the pancreas is to secrete enzymes and hormones that help the body digest food and process sugars. It is located just behind the stomach.

    Pancreatic cancer has the highest death rate of all major cancers. It is more common among men than women.

    Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, Jeopardy’s Alex Trebek, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and actor Patrick Swayze all died from pancreatic cancer.

    Unexplained weight loss and jaundice can be signs of pancreatic cancer. People experiencing those symptoms should seek medical attention. Chronic abdominal pain is usually a sign of another condition.

    Gaddam plans to research the causes of these trends, including examining potential differences between pancreatic tumors in women and in men.

    “This continuing work will help us to evaluate the effectiveness of new health care interventions, with the goal of identifying and addressing disparities in patient outcomes and access to effective treatment,” said Dr. Dan Theodorescu, director of Cedars-Sinai Cancer. “This is an ongoing focus throughout Cedars-Sinai Cancer as we serve our diverse population and can also inform public health policies to benefit patients everywhere.”

    The findings were published online Feb. 10 in the journal Gastroenterology.

    More information

    The U.S. National Cancer Institute has more on pancreatic cancer.

     

    SOURCE: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, news release, Feb. 10, 2023

    Source link

  • Do You Really Want to Read What Your Doctor Writes About You?

    Do You Really Want to Read What Your Doctor Writes About You?

    You may not be aware of this, but you can read everything that your doctor writes about you. Go to your patient portal online, click around until you land on notes from your past visits, and read away. This is a recent development, and a big one. Previously, you always had the right to request your medical record from your care providers—an often expensive and sometimes fruitless process—but in April 2021, a new federal rule went into effect, mandating that patients have the legal right to freely and electronically access most kinds of notes written about them by their doctors.

    If you’ve never heard of “open notes,” as this new law is informally called, you’re not the only one. Doctors say that the majority of their patients have no clue. (This certainly has been the case for all of the friends and family I’ve asked.) If you do know about the law, you likely know a lot about it. That’s typically because you’re a doctor—one who now has to navigate a new era of transparency in medicine—or you’re someone who knows a doctor, or you’re a patient who has become intricately familiar with this country’s health system for one reason or another.

    When open notes went into effect, the change was lauded by advocates as part of a greater push toward patient autonomy and away from medical gatekeeping. Previously, hospitals could charge up to hundreds of dollars to release records, if they released them at all. Many doctors, meanwhile, have been far from thrilled about open notes. They’ve argued that this rule will introduce more challenges than benefits for both patients and themselves. At worst, some have fretted, the law will damage people’s trust of doctors and make everyone’s lives worse.

    A year and a half in, however, open notes don’t seem to have done too much of anything. So far, they have neither revolutionized patient care nor sunk America’s medical establishment. Instead, doctors say, open notes have barely shifted the clinical experience at all. Few individual practitioners have been advertising the change, and few patients are seeking it out on their own. We’ve been left with a partially implemented system and a big unresolved question: How much, really, should you want to read what your doctor is writing about you?


    The debate about open notes can be boiled down to a matter of practicality versus idealism. You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone, doctor or otherwise, who argues against transparency for patients in principle. At the same time, few people I spoke with for this article believe that the new rule has been put in place all that smoothly. For care providers, the primary concern has been the trouble that can come with writing notes for a new audience. Notes, generally scribbled in shorthand incomprehensible to the unknowing eye, have traditionally served doctors, and doctors alone. They allowed physicians to stay up to date on their patients and share information with colleagues for input on cases.

    Some doctors told me they worry that open notes could result in distress for patients who read something they don’t understand, and that highly technical language could make something sound worse than it is. Oncology, for instance, can involve an onslaught of potentially concerning terminology. (Psychotherapy notes are exempt from the new rule.) Other doctors fear that valuable information can be lost if they go too far in de-jargonizing notes to make them patient-friendly. Or that de-jargonizing notes is simply unfeasible. “Let’s say you came to me with pain and pointed to your mid-clavicular line. I’d just put ‘MCL,’” says Aldo Peixoto, a nephrologist at Yale. “But if I were writing for you to understand, I’d have to say ‘pain on the top-right portion of her abdomen in the line that runs from the middle of her clavicle,’ and so on. Rather than writing four lines of prose, I could’ve used literally three letters.”

    If that sounds quibbling, consider the trade-offs. Less time for doctors can translate into less time for patients. Many clinicians already write notes well into the evening. Certainly, the pandemic hasn’t helped. Some doctors told me that if they find themselves in a dilemma of either writing notes in less-efficient, plain language or fielding worried patient calls and messages, exhausted practitioners will face yet another burden. And then there’s the matter of trust. Jack Resneck, the president of the American Medical Association, the nation’s largest professional group of doctors and medical students, told me that doctors can need time and space with patients to get them to open up and be receptive to guidance through difficult situations. If these patients were to see notes too soon, Resneck said, they might “immediately flee and not come back to see you.”

    As doctors have spent more time dealing with open notes, many have eased off their strongest objections. Some, including Resneck and the AMA, have warmed up to the new rule as certain exceptions have been granted, such as allowing doctors whose patients have parents or partners with access to their notes to omit certain details from their write-ups for privacy reasons. Other physicians seem to be coming to a somewhat awkward realization: On a practical level, many concerns about how this change affects patients are irrelevant, because most patients don’t yet know they have instant access to their notes in the first place. Every doctor I spoke with for this story told me that their patients were largely unaware. Many doctors and hospitals are not going out of their way to inform people about the new rule, so unless patients are particularly on top of shifting rules within our convoluted health-care system, they’re unlikely to encounter the notes on their own. Kerin Adelson, an oncologist at Yale, admitted she didn’t know how to find notes in her own patient portal. She spent several minutes with me on the phone fumbling through different tabs to locate them.

    Fans of open notes are frustrated that there is not a greater push for awareness. Even acknowledging that the new system has its shortcomings, many argue that the only way to make things better is to get people invested in the access they’ve recently been granted. Lydia Dugdale, a primary-care doctor at Columbia University, worries about ensuring equity. “Things like socioeconomic status, education, literacy: All of those issues affect the degree to which any given patient is going to want to read and correct and interrogate his or her health record,” she told me. Tom Delbanco, a Harvard doctor and one of the co-founders of OpenNotes, an initiative that spearheaded the push for access to doctors’ notes in the U.S., believes that the effort required to refrain from using “bad words” in notes is minor, and that it shouldn’t make any significant demands on clinicians’ schedules. Doctors who are now taking more time to write notes because of the change, he told me, “probably ought to because they’ve been writing lousy notes.”

    Open notes can be valuable for people with chronic conditions and their caregivers, who need to stay in the know. Liz Salmi, the communications and patient-initiatives director at OpenNotes, told me about pulling her full medical record eight years into dealing with brain cancer, before notes were easily and freely available. The document was 4,839 pages. To get a PDF, she said, she had to pay $15 for each DVD it was uploaded to, and her records spanned multiple discs. But the information was worth it: Having access to the record gave Salmi a way to remember all of the crucial bits of information she’d gotten piecemeal from various doctors.


    The fact that many people have no idea open notes exist doesn’t change the deeply personal questions at stake in the debate about whether the notes do more good or harm—questions that everyone must confront in one way or another in dealing with America’s medical system, whether or not they fully realize it. How much information do you truly want about your health, and how much do you trust your doctor to deliver it to you? What is a doctor’s role in informing people about their health?

    Open notes are only part of this conversation. The new law also requires that test results be made immediately available to patients, meaning that patients might see their health information before their physician does. Although this is fine for the majority of tests, problems arise when results are harbingers of more complex, or just bad, news. Doctors I spoke with shared that some of their patients have suffered trauma from learning about their melanoma or pancreatic cancer or their child’s leukemia from an electronic message in the middle of the night, with no doctor to call and talk through the seriousness of that result with. This was the case for Tara Daniels, a digital-marketing consultant who lives near Boston. She’s had leukemia three times, and learned about the third via a late-night notification from her patient portal. Daniels appreciates the convenience of open notes, which help her keep track of her interactions with various doctors. But, she told me, when it comes to instant results, “I still hold a lot of resentment over the fact that I found out from test results, that I had to figure it out myself, before my doctor was able to tell me.”

    As Americans continue to age, get sick, and navigate the health-care system, many of us may become more invested in the idea of open notes. Until they play a more widespread role in people’s lives, however, the most pressing question about whether you truly want instant access to all your medical information might be how it affects your doctor’s life. Many physicians have come around to open notes, or at least have realized that allowing patients to see what has been written about them is not always a huge bother. But the bigger question of just how quickly patients should be able to access medical information, and how soon doctors should be available to help patients process it, continues to plague physicians. The advent of immediate data sharing “has been a major problem in terms of physician quality of life, and that’s eroded across the board,” Peixoto told me. “Doctors don’t want to be connected all the time. They actually have their lives.”

    Where we have landed, then, is an in-between. Patients can read their doctor’s notes and view test results at any hour of the day, but we can access our providers only at certain times. There is likely room for refinement. Allowing a patient to select whether they receive test results from their physician or their portal, or see notes only after their doctor has had the opportunity to walk them through the terminology used, for instance, could make all the difference, some doctors told me. For now, it’s worth asking yourself whether you want to access your patient portal alone, or want to wait until you can get your doctor on the line.

    Zoya Qureshi

    Source link