King Charles has been diagnosed with cancer

[laladypoet]

Feb 5, 2024 16:29:06 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Whatch me not care about anything royal.

Also if it is prostate, many older men have it and survive it. And also I couldn't care less if he does survive. It affects me none

how come? just curious!

[Susie]

dirtyred, wanderingback, yes, absolutely.  What I should have said was that if he was being treated at home/palace, which I thought I read somewhere, that would seem more like a chemo protocol than radiation because I can't imagine assembling everything to safely do radiation at home, even for a monarch.

[msmerymac]

Feb 5, 2024 17:57:42 GMT -5 quesyrah said:

Feb 5, 2024 16:37:03 GMT -5 wawa said:

I know that the royal watchers here could explain it to me in deep and pointless detail, but this always throws me for a loop.  WHAT FUCKING WORK?  It's not as if they run the country!  

Beatrice, we desperately need you to go to the children's charity gala and present the gilded horse shoes to the most special orphans!  think of orphans beatrice!  If we aren't seen on the lawn kneeling before a child in a deeply relatable manner and later wearing a very fetching but tasteful gown while smiling gracefully who KNOWS what might happen?!  Slightly fewer overly rich old money assbags might donate their dirty imperialist riches to these particular orphans!

I know, I don’t get it either.

It seems like some British people still really love the monarchy and absolutely think they work hard- particularly Anne, William and Kate.

I also wonder what their lives would look like if there was no royal family. Like, how do you just end that? How do any of them get real jobs? And then what happens to Kensington and Buckingham Palaces? I have so many questions about the logistics lol

The palaces that are owned by the crown would revert to the government, so Buckingham, etc could become museums or places to tour, like Versailles.

The royals would still own a ton of private residences, including Sandringham and Balmoral.

Same with jewels, etc. The Crown Jewels are owned by the public, but a lot of tiaras and whatnot were privately owned.

[YeahSure]

Feb 5, 2024 20:44:37 GMT -5 Susie said:

I wonder if it's a blood/lymphatic cancer that might have been discovered via elevated WBC counts or other markers on pre-op blood work.  If he's doing out-patient treatment, that sounds more like chemo than radiation.

Or immunotherapy. 

[YeahSure]

Feb 5, 2024 22:15:38 GMT -5 nothingcontroversial said:

Feb 5, 2024 14:05:17 GMT -5 eddy said:

also Harry is flying in? ugh

Yeah, that stood out to me as well.

The year that my mom was diagnosed with cancer, the diagnosis happened in January (I think) and my mom and dad kept it a secret from me and my sisters until that Memorial Day weekend when mom lost her voice. (I only lived a two hour drive away, so I certainly saw her in person several times while she was keeping it a secret from me.) She kept it a secret from my grandmother until after grandma's birthday at the end of July. (Unfortunately, my mom did pass away in late October of that year.) So, just compared to my family's own experience, it seems to me that it's pretty serious if Harry is flying in now.

Mostly agree. When I was diagnosed, I didn't need anyone to fly out and nobody did; but my daughter definitely offered to.

I can see a parent who hasn't seen their child, agreeing to them coming to see them, even if it wasn't urgent.

[Nugget T. Brain, The OG]

This man waited eighty 'leven thousand years to finally become king and 18 months in he's got cancer.

[msmerymac]

Philip and Elizabeth were damn lucky to live as long as they did because they didn’t have serious health issues. The vast majority of people are taken out by cancer, stroke, heart attack, etc. if you can avoid that, it seems living to nearly a century is easy.

Charles’s grandfather, George VI, died in his 50s due to his incessant smoking. The Queen mother was 101, I think.

[mcsangel2]

I saw part of an interview of an long term oncologist on a British news program yesterday. He speculates that the reason the type of cancer wasn't disclosed is that they don't know themselves yet. Going by the dates of the procedure through yesterday, material removed during the biopsy probably just finished being reviewed, where cancer cells were detected. He says it is most likely by far to be bladder cancer, and he guesses KC3's team will in fact announce the details when they are known. It sounds like the King is receiving radiation but not chemotherapy, as an outpatient procedure at a medical clinic (and the news already announced that he was seen leaving his first appointment this morning).

The doctor says that radiation and chemo procedures are so much better than they used to be, and he expects as this was found so early, that the King should have a full recovery.

[Deleted]

Feb 6, 2024 12:53:03 GMT -5 mcsangel2 said:

I saw part of an interview of an long term oncologist on a British news program yesterday. He speculates that the reason the type of cancer wasn't disclosed is that they don't know themselves yet. Going by the dates of the procedure through yesterday, material removed during the biopsy probably just finished being reviewed, where cancer cells were detected. He says it is most likely by far to be bladder cancer, and he guesses KC3's team will in fact announce the details when they are known. It sounds like the King is receiving radiation but not chemotherapy, as an outpatient procedure at a medical clinic (and the news already announced that he was seen leaving his first appointment this morning).

The doctor says that radiation and chemo procedures are so much better than they used to be, and he expects as this was found so early, that the King should have a full recovery.

That sounds like a lot of speculation, but likely good news. Still, radiation treatment can be really rough.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about the BRF or the monarchy, cancer is a nasty fucker, and that family has been through a lot in the last few years.

[circa1978]

I've had two older relatives with bladder cancer where they either didn't treat it or treated it outpatient, so that seems like a good guess and wouldn't the symptoms potentially overlap with prostate? My dad died of a very aggressive prostate cancer and bladder was one of the first places it chose to metastasize to but a lot of the symptoms were the same I think.


ETA: The weirdest TikToks on this IMO are people being like, oh, Diana is watching and smiling. Like, over what? The man wasn't ever going  to be immortal? 

[mrsukyankee]

I think quite a few people in the UK are a bit on the angry side because he's gotten treatment and investigations very quickly while on the NHS it can be hit and miss, and 1 out of 10 people are currently not receiving any treatment within a month of diagnosis, some have even longer waits. While no one wants anyone to die, it does highlight the disparity in treatment if you have money (even in a country with socialised medicine...which has been decimated by wealthy Tories).

[mcsangel2]

Feb 6, 2024 13:32:49 GMT -5 mrsukyankee said:

I think quite a few people in the UK are a bit on the angry side because he's gotten treatment and investigations very quickly while on the NHS it can be hit and miss, and 1 out of 10 people are currently not receiving any treatment within a month of diagnosis, some have even longer waits. While no one wants anyone to die, it does highlight the disparity in treatment if you have money (even in a country with socialised medicine...which has been decimated by wealthy Tories).

I am aware of what's been happening over time with the NHS, and it is absolutely HORRIFYING.

[womet]

Feb 6, 2024 11:50:14 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Philip and Elizabeth were damn lucky to live as long as they did because they didn’t have serious health issues. The vast majority of people are taken out by cancer, stroke, heart attack, etc. if you can avoid that, it seems living to nearly a century is easy.

Charles’s grandfather, George VI, died in his 50s due to his incessant smoking. The Queen mother was 101, I think.

There's been speculation that the Queen died of bone cancer and that the Queen Mother was also battling cancer when she died. But they wanted it kept private so it wasn't disclosed publicly or even on their death certificates. 

[themoneytree]

Feb 6, 2024 13:32:49 GMT -5 mrsukyankee said:

I think quite a few people in the UK are a bit on the angry side because he's gotten treatment and investigations very quickly while on the NHS it can be hit and miss, and 1 out of 10 people are currently not receiving any treatment within a month of diagnosis, some have even longer waits. While no one wants anyone to die, it does highlight the disparity in treatment if you have money (even in a country with socialised medicine...which has been decimated by wealthy Tories).

Has it really got so bad that if someone in the UK received a cancer diagnosis during a check for something else that they wouldn’t receive fast treatment for it?
Being sad about someone’s cancer treatment seems terribly sad.

Fortunately this hasn’t been the experience my family and friends have had so far (touch wood).

[mrsukyankee]

themoneytree, yeah, it's been in the news a lot recently, even before the King got his diagnosis. Every year it gets worse and worse. Some areas of the UK are harder off than others. I feel fortunate that I live in London so I'd probably get seen sooner if I had cancer.

[ksun]

I do not care for the King. I have not ever cared for him. I hink he is an awful person. However, I lost my dad and my grandpa to cancer. My dad just 5 months ago. I don't really wish cancer on anyone.

basilosaurus, my dad did not survive prostate cancer. I understand not caring for the King, which I don't either, but the comment was very misguided and hurtful.

[tamarindy]

Feb 5, 2024 16:29:06 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Whatch me not care about anything royal.

Also if it is prostate, many older men have it and survive it. And also I couldn't care less if he does survive. It affects me none

Oof. You’re so angry.

[erbear]

Feb 6, 2024 17:57:24 GMT -5 ksun said:

I do not care for the King. I have not ever cared for him. I hink he is an awful person. However, I lost my dad and my grandpa to cancer. My dad just 5 months ago. I don't really wish cancer on anyone.

basilosaurus , my dad did not survive prostate cancer. I understand not caring for the King, which I don't either, but the comment was very misguided and hurtful.

I'm sorry for your loss. 

Agree that this was an insensitive comment. You can be as anti-monarchy as you want to be but sheesh on the lack of humanity.

[aurora]

Feb 6, 2024 16:10:31 GMT -5 mrsukyankee said:

themoneytree, yeah, it's been in the news a lot recently, even before the King got his diagnosis. Every year it gets worse and worse. Some areas of the UK are harder off than others. I feel fortunate that I live in London so I'd probably get seen sooner if I had cancer.

I admit I don't know the statistics on the U.S. but we definitely have disparate medical care here, too. MIL had to wait quite a while (weeks for each appointment, certainly months total) for early cancer-related tests and diagnosis before any treatment even with decent insurance, just because there are so few providers near where she lives. I wouldn't be surprised if 1 in 10 wait a month or more here, too. (And now I'm realizing I quoted the wrong post; that statistic was in a different one.)

Of course that doesn't make it good or right, just that I don't think it's unique to countries with more socialized medicine.

[lillaguma]

Feb 5, 2024 23:06:07 GMT -5 sakoro said:

Feb 5, 2024 17:57:42 GMT -5 quesyrah said:

I know, I don’t get it either.

It seems like some British people still really love the monarchy and absolutely think they work hard- particularly Anne, William and Kate.

That’s something I don’t understand either when British people justify the monarchy. In US, First Ladies always sponsor pet causes (like Michelle Obama and healthy eating and Military families) and celebrities fundraise for certain charities (like Jennifer Aniston and St Jude’s hospital). But it seems like the British charities are much more reliant on Royal sponsorship for fundraising. They also seem to do things like open new wings of hospitals and recreation centers, which would be done by local government people in the US. Would all the donations and publicity dry up if the Royal Family wasn’t involved?

I think they do have pet causes? Kate has her early childhood education stuff she's sponsored and headed up, and William has the earthshot prize stuff. I'm not a huge royal watcher, but I would consider those to be similar to what you describe.

[mrsukyankee]

aurora, we all know that. It's more that the rich have worked to destroy what was once a really good socialised healthcare system in hopes of becoming more like the US (so they can get even more rich in investing in private healthcare). There was always a disparity, but it's grown exponentially in the last 13 years of Tory rule.

[gemini79]

These posts always highlight how much of a curtain of misconception there is around cancer.

[TR]

Feb 7, 2024 10:57:10 GMT -5 gemini79 said:

These posts always highlight how much of a curtain of misconception there is around cancer.

What do you mean?

[4speedy]

Feb 6, 2024 23:19:54 GMT -5 aurora said:

Feb 6, 2024 16:10:31 GMT -5 mrsukyankee said:

themoneytree , yeah, it's been in the news a lot recently, even before the King got his diagnosis. Every year it gets worse and worse. Some areas of the UK are harder off than others. I feel fortunate that I live in London so I'd probably get seen sooner if I had cancer.

I admit I don't know the statistics on the U.S. but we definitely have disparate medical care here, too. MIL had to wait quite a while (weeks for each appointment, certainly months total) for early cancer-related tests and diagnosis before any treatment even with decent insurance, just because there are so few providers near where she lives. I wouldn't be surprised if 1 in 10 wait a month or more here, too. (And now I'm realizing I quoted the wrong post; that statistic was in a different one.)

Of course that doesn't make it good or right, just that I don't think it's unique to countries with more socialized medicine.


I;ve said it here before but just to emphasize…in the past year I was diagnosed with breast cancer  I have really good employer provided insurance.  My mom was diagnosed with ovarian cancer.  She has Medicare.  My sister was diagnosed with the same genetic mutation I have, resulting in a prophylactic hysterectomy.  She is part of the ACA open market.  It has been stunning to see the difference in coverage and the hoops to go through to get that coverage.  I breezed right through everything, never even had to make a follow-up phone call to get anything scheduled or paid for.  My mom eventually got everything she needed but it took a lot of appeals.  My sister, well, it;s been a disaster.  Like a full time job to figure everything out on her own, and then waiting for MONTHS between appaointments.  It took her a year, almost to the week, before she could get her hysterectomy.  And yet she’s grateful she has any coverage at all.

[aurora]

4speedy, I'm so sorry about your sister's struggles to obtain care. I get so angry about our system.

I hope all of your outcomes are good.

[aurora]

Feb 7, 2024 1:41:17 GMT -5 mrsukyankee said:

aurora, we all know that. It's more that the rich have worked to destroy what was once a really good socialised healthcare system in hopes of becoming more like the US (so they can get even more rich in investing in private healthcare). There was always a disparity, but it's grown exponentially in the last 13 years of Tory rule.

Thanks for clarifying! I was reacting to all the arguments I've heard in the U.S. about how terrible socialized health insurance is and not reading it from your perspective of how things have changed for the worse as rich people take advantage.

[mrsukyankee]

aurora , having lived in both countries, I'd take the NHS any day, but as it was when I arrived. I'd still take it now but it's getting harder. (this is coloured that I had private insurance in the US through work and it sucked, which led to me having a massive amount of debt after a knee surgery). In the NHS, you don't have health insurance - you pay through work a special tax that goes to the NHS. If you don't work, you still can use the NHS for free. That's what I like about it - no one gets excluded from services. You can buy or get private insurance through work but you still use the NHS for referrals to private services (and the one we have through my H's job has no deductible or co-payments, so much better than I had in the US). I'd be happy with other systems in Europe that are different too. The biggest takeaway is that people don't go into debt for medical issues over here.

[wanderingback]

In regards to cancer specifically and the NHS and the US, screening guidelines seem to be different and screening happens later under the NHS vs US guidelines that the insurance companies usually pay for.

For example breast cancer screening here you can easily start and get covered at age 40 and yearly, while in the NHS it starts at age 50 and is every 3 years. I know this specifically because my partner’s sister in London had breast cancer after she found a lump and she was 52 and had her mammogram 2 years prior and it was a struggle for her to get another mammogram, but thankfully she finally did. I know colon cancer screening is also recommended later there vs 45 here. I do not know stats comparing cancer morbidity and mortality outcomes there vs here.

Either way it sucks when people have to wait and/or pay for their care!

ETA: I’m going to assume the NHS has calculated that later screenings don’t save any money or lives and is overall cheaper so that’s why they use those recommendations. I do think if the US ever were to go to a completely socialized system people who are used to "good employee sponsored plans" would be in for a huge shift in how things are. People complain about prior authorizations now and it would essentially be like that with care getting denied if outside of what is covered. We spend entirely too much on healthcare with no better outcomes so I don’t think it’s necessarily be a bad thing just a shift in perspective and people wouldn’t go in to debt.
Clearly this is a huge tangent. Carry on about the king

[rubytue]

Feb 7, 2024 11:30:35 GMT -5 TR said:

Feb 7, 2024 10:57:10 GMT -5 gemini79 said:

These posts always highlight how much of a curtain of misconception there is around cancer.

What do you mean?

Not the PP, but a few examples:

The 5th post in this thread went straight to smoking. There are so many cancers *not* linked to smoking, but yet…. Someone is automatically “wonder how much smoke he was around…”  And, I’ve been on this soapbox before, but please can we stop hearing the word cancer and thinking smoking. It’s very damaging to patients. 

One can have perfect blood work and still have a lymphatic cancer 🙋‍♀️ 🙋‍♀️ 

Chemo and radiation both can be inpatient or outpatient. Depending on the type of cancer and the type of chemo. And even some that were once inpatient (ICE) are now sometimes outpatient. 

[quesyrah]

Feb 8, 2024 7:40:43 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

In regards to cancer specifically and the NHS and the US, screening guidelines seem to be different and screening happens later under the NHS vs US guidelines that the insurance companies usually pay for.

For example breast cancer screening here you can easily start and get covered at age 40 and yearly, while in the NHS it starts at age 50 and is every 3 years. I know this specifically because my partner’s sister in London had breast cancer after she found a lump and she was 52 and had her mammogram 2 years prior and it was a struggle for her to get another mammogram, but thankfully she finally did. I know colon cancer screening is also recommended later there vs 45 here. I do not know stats comparing cancer morbidity and mortality outcomes there vs here.

Either way it sucks when people have to wait and/or pay for their care!

ETA: I’m going to assume the NHS has calculated that later screenings don’t save any money or lives and is overall cheaper so that’s why they use those recommendations. I do think if the US ever were to go to a completely socialized system people who are used to "good employee sponsored plans" would be in for a huge shift in how things are. People complain about prior authorizations now and it would essentially be like that with care getting denied if outside of what is covered. We spend entirely too much on healthcare with no better outcomes so I don’t think it’s necessarily be a bad thing just a shift in perspective and people wouldn’t go in to debt.
Clearly this is a huge tangent. Carry on about the king

Thank you for sharing this, it was really interesting to read.

Something I always wonder is how “they” come up our the guidelines as to when, what kind and how often preventative screenings should happen.