View Full Version : Ginsburg pancreatic cancer
Surprised I haven’t seen anyone post about it yet. RBG was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer again, 4th bout of cancer so far, pancreatic in 1999, colorectal in 2009 I believe, two tumors on her lung over the winter and now PAC again. From all the articles I’ve read, they have been very tight lipped on the details, just that they did three weeks of radiation and installed a stent in her bile duct.
From reading the opinions of some medical folks who deal with oncology, they say that given the information made public, they give her no more than a year to last, but probably closer to 3 months.
I hope she retires from the bench and spend her remaining time with friends and family.
I thought pancreatic cancer was not survivable?!?! With early detection, proper meds and some luck the best is a 5 year survival rate
Combined 1 year survival rate is 20% and 5 year rate is 7%.
I had a reletive who was diagnosed a few years ago right before the Christmas holidays. He was dead by May
On one hand, I admire her sheer will. Having lost loved ones to cancer. It takes a will bordering on the supernatural to keep going when educated doctors tell you that you should not be alive.
However she is simply medically unfit now and I would hope she is professional enough to step down with some dignity and not allow her last days to become part of political theatre
sundance435
08-27-19, 16:34
I thought pancreatic cancer was not survivable?!?! With early detection, proper meds and some luck the best is a 5 year survival rate
Combined 1 year survival rate is 20% and 5 year rate is 7%.
I had a reletive who was diagnosed a few years ago right before the Christmas holidays. He was dead by May
Even 8 years ago it was basically a death sentence, like <3% out to 5 years, but my understanding is that treatment has come a long way. Probably closer to 20-25% now for Stage III. I think the main problem is reliably diagnosing it early enough. Still one of the worst diagnoses you could get.
On one hand, I admire her sheer will. Having lost loved ones to cancer. It takes a will bordering on the supernatural to keep going when educated doctors tell you that you should not be alive.
However she is simply medically unfit now and I would hope she is professional enough to step down with some dignity and not allow her last days to become part of political theatre
I wonder how much of it is her stubbornness and how much of it is every democrat on the country telling her she can’t step down?
Even 8 years ago it was basically a death sentence, like <3% out to 5 years, but my understanding is that treatment has come a long way. Probably closer to 20-25% now for Stage III. I think the main problem is reliably diagnosing it early enough. Still one of the worst diagnoses you could get.You may be right, I don't follow it just know about it because of a reletive from a few years ago. However, OP states her FIRST time was in 99!!
There are different types of what the news media calls "pancreatic cancer", their assumption that that is the appropriate category for any cancer that happens to reside in the pancreas. Very different biological behaviors, different treatments, different prognoses.
Her original "pancreatic cancer" was likely some kind of neuroendocrine tumor (think milder stage of Steve Jobs) as opposed to an adenocarcinoma (think Patrick Swayze or Michael Landon). This time, the fact that she had radiation and a bile duct stent has me thinking Patrick Swayze. If they didn't operate and just stented....that says to me "palliative care".
My Grandfather died of it within 6 months of diagnosis. The thing is most people don’t find it until it’s too late and pancreatic cancer is very aggressive....as are all adenocarcinomas. Sounds like they are screening her on a regular basis though and would therefore find something very early.
Don’t think she will retire while Trump is president. If he loses in 2020 I guarantee it’s the first thing she does. Otherwise the left will keep her on the bench in anyway possible
58590
There are different types of what the news media calls "pancreatic cancer", their assumption that that is the appropriate category for any cancer that happens to reside in the pancreas. Very different biological behaviors, different treatments, different prognoses.
Her original "pancreatic cancer" was likely some kind of neuroendocrine tumor (think milder stage of Steve Jobs) as opposed to an adenocarcinoma (think Patrick Swayze or Michael Landon). This time, the fact that she had radiation and a bile duct stent has me thinking Patrick Swayze. If they didn't operate and just stented....that says to me "palliative care".
Wonder if she's had a Whipple previously? You're a general surgeon, is that something you would do or have done?
I despise RBG with all my being, and her f****d-up libtard views. That said, FVCK CANCER!
Diamondback
08-27-19, 19:02
My Grandfather died of it within 6 months of diagnosis. The thing is most people don’t find it until it’s too late and pancreatic cancer is very aggressive....as are all adenocarcinomas. Sounds like they are screening her on a regular basis though and would therefore find something very early.
Don’t think she will retire while Trump is president. If he loses in 2020 I guarantee it’s the first thing she does. Otherwise the left will keep her on the bench in anyway possible
58590
Three words: Disneyland Audio-Animatronic. They can't do a simple "Weekend At Bernies" stuff-and-mount like they did with Robert "Sheets" Byrd anymore, because we're onto that trick...
hotrodder636
08-27-19, 19:11
Don’t think I could say it any better than this.
On one hand, I admire her sheer will. Having lost loved ones to cancer. It takes a will bordering on the supernatural to keep going when educated doctors tell you that you should not be alive.
However she is simply medically unfit now and I would hope she is professional enough to step down with some dignity and not allow her last days to become part of political theatre
There are different types of what the news media calls "pancreatic cancer", their assumption that that is the appropriate category for any cancer that happens to reside in the pancreas. Very different biological behaviors, different treatments, different prognoses.
Her original "pancreatic cancer" was likely some kind of neuroendocrine tumor (think milder stage of Steve Jobs) as opposed to an adenocarcinoma (think Patrick Swayze or Michael Landon). This time, the fact that she had radiation and a bile duct stent has me thinking Patrick Swayze. If they didn't operate and just stented....that says to me "palliative care".
That’s exactly what others have been saying, which seems most likely accurate (given the provided information)
Wonder if she's had a Whipple previously? You're a general surgeon, is that something you would do or have done?
I despise RBG with all my being, and her f****d-up libtard views. That said, FVCK CANCER!
Yeah, Whipple's are part of my skill set but pancreatic cancer is not common around here and we increasingly refer them out to hepatobiliary surgeons who are doing them robotically. Whipples aren't part of my robotic skill set and given the low frequency aren't likely to become so. RBG hasn't had a Whipple, however. Her original operation was apparently far more localized for a cancer in the pancreas of unknown type, only that it was reportedly "very small" and discovered incidentally on a follow up CT scan that was part of her ongoing testing after her colon cancer operation 10 years previously. Now, she has a new pancreatic cancer. This one, however, is in the head of the pancreas and is located such that it's impinging the common bile duct. THAT is a bad sign and loudly says "adenocarcinoma". They didn't do a Whipple, which is the only curative approach in an adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas. This might be because of the stage of the tumor or because of her age/health...probably the latter. My guess is that they're betting that she'd live longer and/or better with this degree of palliation than she would after a Whipple. The question her doctors would have asked themselves. If she had an adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas that was advanced enough that she needed a common duct stent...well...she's going to die from this disease. What we don't know, is when. She certainly won't live through Trump's second term (assuming he doesn't **** it up and actually has a second term) and IMHO, it's a toss-up as to whether or not she'll live for the rest of Trump's current term.
The carefully crafted press release says...
While Ginsburg’s condition is stable and the Supreme Court justice is already back in action, she will need to closely monitor her health to ensure the cancer doesn’t recur. The tumor was treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body,” the U.S. Supreme Court stated. “Justice Ginsburg will continue to have periodic blood tests and scans.
IOW, "the cancer is still there in here pancreas, temporarily stunned by the radiation, and the metastases that are going to kill her are below the resolution of our CT scanner." The cancer is not going to "recur". It's still there. She (and the Democrats) are in a race against time. Will this cancer recur and kill her while Trump is still president. She is gamely hanging on in the hope that Trump won't win in 2020 and her vacancy will be nominated by Elizabeth Warren.
Grand58742
08-27-19, 20:28
I think the Dems already know...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rbg-scare-david-axelrod-warns-supreme-court-vacancy-fight-could-tear-this-country-apart
A former Obama adviser set the stage for a potentially nasty confirmation fight in the Senate next year within an hour of the Supreme Court announcing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently completed three weeks of radiation treatment after doctors found a localized cancerous tumor on her pancreas.
"If there is a SCOTUS vacancy next year and @senatemajldr carries through on his extraordinary promise to fill it-despite his own previous precedent in blocking Garland-it will tear this country apart," David Axelrod said in a tweet Friday afternoon.
Ginsburg, who is 86, has battled various illnesses over the last 20 years. The Supreme Court said in a statement Friday that she “tolerated the treatment well" and concluded that there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in her body.
After a third bout with cancer earlier this year, Ginsburg told NPR in July that she has no plans to retire anytime soon. She said her plan is to "stay longer" than the late Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired from the high court in 2010 at the age of 90.
On one hand, I admire her sheer will. Having lost loved ones to cancer. It takes a will bordering on the supernatural to keep going when educated doctors tell you that you should not be alive.
However she is simply medically unfit now and I would hope she is professional enough to step down with some dignity and not allow her last days to become part of political theatre
I was listening to someone the other day go on about judges that were medically unfit on the higher court and them talking about one that it seemed like the law clerks made decisions for them. While interesting it bothered me that it was well this happens, they should have gone into why that's stupid.
The few times I've seen videos of Ginsburg in public show that she should have retired a while ago. She wanted to retire and have Clinton replace her, that was her screw up. In a way I feel sorry for her, I'm guessing she is trying to hold out hoping she can outlast trump. She really should just take it easy as it doesn't seem like she is in good health.
BoringGuy45
08-27-19, 23:45
I think the Dems already know...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rbg-scare-david-axelrod-warns-supreme-court-vacancy-fight-could-tear-this-country-apart
Yeah, well they can suck it. Axelrod can complain all he wants, but everybody knows that if the roles were reversed, the Dems would have done the same goddamn thing.
However, I can't help but wonder if THIS is what will set off a civil war...
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-28-19, 00:01
I think this is why Trump was saving a woman for the next pick. No MeToo, no man view on abortion, replacing a woman. Trump better go full in if something happens, Mitch too. If they lose the senate and Trump wins, he won't get another pick through- or they think that they can stop another pick if they control the Senate. Trump will shut down the govt for extended periods of time to get another pick.
I don't wish cancer on anyone, but she has been unfit before the cancer thing.
If you fall asleep working at McDonalds they fire your ass. But apparently if you fall asleep listening to legal mumbo jumbo they let you take your nap.
Appointments for life are a bad idea.
ThirdWatcher
08-28-19, 01:40
I don't wish cancer on anyone, but she has been unfit before the cancer thing...
+1. I wouldn’t wish cancer on my worst enemy but it’s time to retire when you can’t stay awake at work.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-28-19, 07:33
She wanted to be replaced by the first woman POTUS . She screwed up, she trusted a Clinton.
Maybe she was planning on quitting at the end of Obama and then Scalia died and she realized her replacement would hang in limbo too.
I wish we could find someone that would let people kill their babies and let us keep our guns. That would take out most of the politics.
I wish we could find someone that would let people kill their babies and let us keep our guns. That would take out most of the politics.
Not even close.
BoringGuy45
08-28-19, 09:34
She wanted to be replaced by the first woman POTUS . She screwed up, she trusted a Clinton.
Maybe she was planning on quitting at the end of Obama and then Scalia died and she realized her replacement would hang in limbo too.
I wish we could find someone that would let people kill their babies and let us keep our guns. That would take out most of the politics.
That would have the opposite effect. Both sides would unanimously reject such a person.
Otherwise the left will keep her on the bench in anyway possible
Daily injections of fetus squeezin's from PP...
She's gonna outlive us all.
I don't wish cancer on anyone, but she has been unfit before the cancer thing.
If you fall asleep working at McDonalds they fire your ass. But apparently if you fall asleep listening to legal mumbo jumbo they let you take your nap.
Appointments for life are a bad idea.
Well said. Her doctor should also be disciplined for allowing her to work in one of the most critical govt positions. Congress should have term limits as well. It is obscene when a person is 80 yrs old, still in Congress and never had a career outside of campaigning. There are few who can do it and still have morals and common sense but there are 10 times many over ripe ones for each good one.
Most Supreme Court justices are getting appointed around 55-60 yrs old. Serve 15 years and then it should be forced retirement. There always qualified people waiting in the wings. The nation does not depend on any one justice serving forever.
Grand58742
08-28-19, 13:12
Well said. Her doctor should also be disciplined for allowing her to work in one of the most critical govt positions. Congress should have term limits as well. It is obscene when a person is 80 yrs old, still in Congress and never had a career outside of campaigning. There are few who can do it and still have morals and common sense but there are 10 times many over ripe ones for each good one.
Most Supreme Court justices are getting appointed around 55-60 yrs old. Serve 15 years and then it should be forced retirement. There always qualified people waiting in the wings. The nation does not depend on any one justice serving forever.
Twelve year terms on Congress (two Senate or six House or mix and match which cannot exceed 12 years). Twelve years in Congress total, never to return. It's public service, not public profession.
15 years for SCOTUS. I've talked to a few lawyers that anything less than 15 years tends to be a "waste" of judiciary talent since the SCOTUS doesn't hear that many cases per year, but the decisions are extremely impacting. However, 15 years allows for new blood to be introduced at random intervals and not everyone changing over at the same time.
I'd bet 75% or more of Americans would support a Constitutional Amendment with these restrictions. Too bad Congress won't...
Well said. Her doctor should also be disciplined for allowing her to work in one of the most critical govt positions.
:rolleyes: RBG's ability to do her job is not for her doctor to judge and "allowing" her to return to it is not within his/her purview. Why do you think doctors have that kind of power?
This site has shown what I always knew it had.....a modicum of professional criticism coupled with a realistic, human approach.
We all have known someone who has had cancer, maybe even yourself. We all (I assume on M4C) vehemently disagree with RBG's politics and rulings. Yet a significant number of posts essentially say "F**k cancer". Not one post so far has said "I hope the bitch dies of it". Good on you guys!
Diamondback
08-28-19, 18:40
This site has shown what I always knew it had.....a modicum of professional criticism coupled with a realistic, human approach.
We all have known someone who has had cancer, maybe even yourself. We all (I assume on M4C) vehemently disagree with RBG's politics and rulings. Yet a significant number of posts essentially say "F**k cancer". Not one post so far has said "I hope the bitch dies of it". Good on you guys!
Well said--I shall neither take joy in her suffering nor mourn her passing when it comes, but I do pray for her soul as I'd wish others to do for me.
:rolleyes: RBG's ability to do her job is not for her doctor to judge and "allowing" her to return to it is not within his/her purview. Why do you think doctors have that kind of power?
I was being facetious. Obviously they do not have that authority. I understand you being a doc that silly comment could be taken more seriously.
The silly thing is a doc needs to approve a pilot carrying 10 people 1 hour to Des Moines, but a justice can be plagued with severe health issues and yet have the fate of millions of livelihoods and even lives in their hands for generations to come with no check on their physical or mental state.
I thought pancreatic cancer was not survivable?!?! With early detection, proper meds and some luck the best is a 5 year survival rate
Combined 1 year survival rate is 20% and 5 year rate is 7%.
I had a reletive who was diagnosed a few years ago right before the Christmas holidays. He was dead by May
I just worked with a friend of mine today that beat it about two years ago. He seems to be doing well.
This site has shown what I always knew it had.....a modicum of professional criticism coupled with a realistic, human approach.
We all have known someone who has had cancer, maybe even yourself. We all (I assume on M4C) vehemently disagree with RBG's politics and rulings. Yet a significant number of posts essentially say "F**k cancer". Not one post so far has said "I hope the bitch dies of it". Good on you guys!
It's a demonstration of social ethics and human decency. People with class, despite political differences, will demonstrate such behavior. However, we see little of it on the side of the Progressive Left these days.
Twelve year terms on Congress (two Senate or six House or mix and match which cannot exceed 12 years). Twelve years in Congress total, never to return. It's public service, not public profession.
15 years for SCOTUS. I've talked to a few lawyers that anything less than 15 years tends to be a "waste" of judiciary talent since the SCOTUS doesn't hear that many cases per year, but the decisions are extremely impacting. However, 15 years allows for new blood to be introduced at random intervals and not everyone changing over at the same time.
I'd bet 75% or more of Americans would support a Constitutional Amendment with these restrictions. Too bad Congress won't...
I'll do you one better, Congress by lottery. Walk out to the mailbox and open an envelope and "crap I'm a senator." Random sampling among those with an actual job. You do your 4 to 8 years then return to your original profession.
MorphCross
08-29-19, 00:38
I'll do you one better, Congress by lottery. Walk out to the mailbox and open an envelope and "crap I'm a senator." Random sampling among those with an actual job. You do your 4 to 8 years then return to your original profession.
And during your term of service you get paid as much as a Juror performing his/her civic duty...
On the original topic, she is a tough dame that death has little desire to meet.
It's a demonstration of social ethics and human decency. People with class, despite political differences, will demonstrate such behavior. However, we see little of it on the side of the Progressive Left these days.
^^^Truth there. The Left has abandoned civility and decency and has zero tolerance for those with different political views.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-29-19, 07:12
And during your term of service you get paid as much as a Juror performing his/her civic duty...
????
I'd definitely be taking money on the side then.... Nothing like having the people running the govt pissed off and losing everything in a forced servitude. That will work. :confused:
You get what you pay for.
Adrenaline_6
08-29-19, 08:28
You get what you pay for.
I agree up to a point. After that threshold, it is all fluff and bling that from a function standpoint provides nothing and most times actually causes problems or degradation in efficiency. That is pretty much where we are at today.
And during your term of service you get paid as much as a Juror performing his/her civic duty...
Yeah, no. You wanna force me to drop my life and go be a Congress-shit for 8 year, I sure as hell better be gettin' PAID. 1Mil per year tax-free. Minimum. Otherwise, I'm gonna do as much shady shit as possible during those 8 years so that I'm set for life when it's done. (just like how it works now)
I agree up to a point. After that threshold, it is all fluff and bling that from a function standpoint provides nothing and most times actually causes problems or degradation in efficiency. That is pretty much where we are at today.Relative to effectiveness, our elected legislators at the Federal level are overpaid, and definitely over-perked. But, you have to pay what the market demands. A salary of $174,000 is not a particularly compelling inducement if we expect America's best and brightest to seek the job. Jefferson's concept of the "citizen legislator", while a worthwhile goal on paper, just doesn't reflect the reality of the political process.
Adrenaline_6
08-29-19, 13:51
Relative to effectiveness, our elected legislators at the Federal level are overpaid, and definitely over-perked. But, you have to pay what the market demands. A salary of $174,000 is not a particularly compelling inducement if we expect America's best and brightest to seek the job. Jefferson's concept of the "citizen legislator", while a worthwhile goal on paper, just doesn't reflect the reality of the political process.
The market isn't necessarily demanding it. The people who are already in, are. Go figure. There are plenty competent and smart people out there that aren't getting paid what they could be potentially. I think the supply is bigger than the demand. Like many good paying jobs, the people who are working in a company almost always think they should be payed more, while a just as capable unemployed or under appreciated employed person would be plenty happy to take that person place with that pay.
As far as Ginsberg goes, she will stay on to the bitter end and even past that if the left can pull it off.
I'll do you one better, Congress by lottery. Walk out to the mailbox and open an envelope and "crap I'm a senator." Random sampling among those with an actual job. You do your 4 to 8 years then return to your original profession.
I love this idea, but can you imagine all the excuses? You think jury duty excuses are bad...
I think the person should have to have a steady job and also own a home or property. Skin in the game. No welfare recipients voting to give themselves more free stuff. If someone has their life together enough to hold down a job and own a home, then then can certainly handle the job that the congress idiots are supposed to be doing now.
Pay should match what they are making now and for the last few years. Don't want to change their standard of living. Maybe a little bump to compensate for the potential loss of income for any advancement that might have come were they not tending to the business of our country.
All the possibilities of this are running through my mind...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.