The colon manifests symptoms, but is not the actual cause of inflammation in ulcerative colitis. So why would removing it be the cure? Isn't that like removing your head when you have a headache or your ear during an earache. Isn't a cure supposed to treat the cause instead of the symptoms? Pondering this stuff could send one around in circles. However, the absurdity of trying to remove a head for a headache goes a long way towards helping me see the hilarity of treatment for IBD.
It's not lost on me that doctors use language like "managing symptoms" when discussing new drugs. Cure seems to be a word reserved for races and researchers. I am a strong supporter of these efforts and have donated dollars for many a cause, but I just don't have doctors that talk about cures. Maybe they learned to talk about "manging symptoms" in a class devoted to managing expectations? It is fine and even necessary for surgeons and cutting edge researchers to talk about new advances and fix alls, but I suspect that the practitioners charged with the day-to-day care of chronic health conditions spend more time worrying about patients taking medicine and not developing troublesome side effects. Is this right?
Should doctors be talking about cures?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment