Quote:
Originally Posted by lady_express_44
A cure, to me, is that they can come up with a vaccine or something so that others don't end up getting it ... or at least that they can stop it in it's tracks.
Even with cancer, the best they can do is stop it ... and if they do, a person is "cured". Any damage that it caused in the process, like the loss of a breast or ovaries, would not be possible to regain.
I do not consider that we would necessarily need to regain function once it's lost, in order to be considered "cured".
Cherie
|
Cherie,
You really hit on a lot in a little bit of words, I need to learn to do that.
I boil down many of the thoughts -
1) Does a cure require having the ability to prevent/vaccinate others not yet diagnosed?
2) Does a cure mean you must have a ready antidote for someone after the diagnosis?
3) Does a cure mean you are returned to your pre-illness state or is it acceptable if there is irreparable damage left behind?
4) What if the damage is significant?
5) Is the cessation of progression enough to call a treatment a cure?
Too bad you can't set up a poll on this website. Thank you Cherie for your thoughts. I wonder how each of us has a different experience that effects the degree of change we would require of something called a care. Ken