I.M.R.T. -- Does Profit Potential Drive Prostate Cancer Treatmen

The fact is, despite the claim by most people in the field that “all treatments” provide a similar outcome, some treatments for some patients provide a different outcome.

And, what do practitioners mean by “similar outcome?”

Do they mean the patient will live longer?

Do they mean the cancer is gone?

Do they mean the same number and kind of side effects?

They mean, most probably, that the cancer is gone…which is a good thing, but doesn’t speak to the quality of life of the patient, both mentally and physically.

It should be noted (and the Times article does so) that most people who received one treatment or another are pleased with the outcome. This is a little like Mac enthusiasts praising Mac, and PC enthusiasts praising PC. It depends on which computer you started with, say the experts.

I don’t know what the answer is for treatment of prostate cancer. I do know that if doctors are actually recommending I.M.R.T. because they benefit from it financially, that’s a moral outrage. On the other hand, if they do so because they believe it’s best for their patients, that’s legitimate. How do we separate the sheep from the goats?

Frankly, I don’t know, so I suppose it’ll be up to the regulators, the insurance companies, and the ethicists to sort this out – because the votes are still not in on what’s the best for each patient.

What do you think? Post a comment for Kit or visit our message boards.