Skip to main content

Cash, Cancer, Nightmares

A friend of mine, his name is not Francoise, is dying of cancer. Poor chap.  Francoise is a mild man with a wonderful combination of seriousness and humor that makes him so very human. His cancer was discovered late - way too late. He saw a number of doctors all of which are very professional. He got all necessary examinations, lots of highly informed and deeply thoughtful support - but there is a point when things simply don't stop to look daunting anymore. They start to look unsettling and then they give way to pure despair.
Friends of his started an email-campaign asking for help to collect six thousand Euro to get him to Switzerland and have him treated - at a homeopathic clinic. Yes, there still are organizations around that take big money to attack cancer with diluted water the price of gold-plated diamonds. The loving and concerned friends stated that they want to get him out of the hands of 'the pharma lobby' and they pushed him right into the throat of the homeopathy-carnivores. For a two-week stay at that clinic roughly 3000 US$ have to be transferred before arrival. The physicians' bills (adding up to more than 2300 US$) have to be paid *in cash* on site. Cash! Why? Was there ever anyone besides your local heroin-dealer demanding huge amounts of cash? Randomly numbered, crispy, fresh bills?
And what do you get again?
Two (2) weeks, 'Category B room' (shower and toilet down the hall), food, physicians' cost, 'treatment'. Two weeks! about 6000 US$! 
His friends managed to collect the first half in no time and sent Francoise to the clinic. Shortly thereafter an email with the subject-line "Great news about Francoise!" which I happily opened, hoping to see my friend smiling. The great news? "Funding completed". That?
Now, after two weeks in Switzerland my friend returned. He is weak "but getting stronger". Has cancer tightened his grip? His weakness, he says, stems from the problems he had with the clinic-food. Francoise is not from Europe and he got sick from a nutrition he is not used to. He got diarrhea from eating stuff he normally wouldn't. He spent significant time down the hall of his category-B room. What exactly where they talking about during the promised anamnesis which is part of a three hour welcome-package, billed at 600 Swiss Francs?
Now he is back in his dumpy room at home and he asked again if I had a mattress for him. Fortunately he has lovely friends. They help him carry coal up to his apartment and keep the fire burning. They bring him food he knows and loves. He is eating, he will get stronger - until cancer hits back on him.
At the same time in Switzerland I imagine some doctors stash away the cash in pillow-cases. Maybe it helps them sleep better. Maybe it keeps the nightmares away. Their nightmares not his.

Comments

Carsten Hucho said…
My friend passed away April 27th. His family was with him. His brothers, his wife and kid. And a very good friend who did not know him but helped him on his difficult path.

Popular posts from this blog

Academics should be blogging? No.

"blogging is quite simply, one of the most important things that an academic should be doing right now" The London School of Economics and Political Science states in one of their, yes, Blogs . It is wrong. The arguments just seem so right: "faster communication of scientific results", "rapid interaction with colleagues" "responsibility to give back results to the public". All nice, all cuddly and warm, all good. But wrong. It might be true for scientoid babble. But this is not how science works.  Scientists usually follow scientific methods to obtain results. They devise, for example, experiments to measure a quantity while keeping the boundary-conditions in a defined range. They do discuss their aims, problems, techniques, preliminary results with colleagues - they talk about deviations and errors, successes and failures. But they don't do that wikipedia-style by asking anybody for an opinion . Scientific discussion needs a set

My guinea pig wants beer!

Rather involuntary train rides (especially long ones, going to boring places for a boring event) are good for updates on some thoughts lingering in the lower levels of the brain-at-ease. My latest trip (from Berlin to Bonn) unearthed the never-ending squabble about the elusive 'free will'. Neuroscientists make headlines proving with alacrity the absence of free will by experimenting with brain-signals that precede the apparent willful act - by as much as seven seconds! Measuring brain-activity way before the human guinea pig actually presses a button with whatever hand or finger he desires, they predict with breathtaking reproducibility the choice to be made. So what? Is that the end of free will? I am afraid that those neuroscientists would accept only non-predictability as a definite sign of free will. But non-predictability results from two possible scenarios: a) a random event (without a cause) b) an event triggered by something outside of the system (but caused).

No theory - no money!

A neuroscientist I was talking to recently complained that the Higgs-research,even the Neutrino-fluke at CERN is getting humungous funding while neuroscience is struggling for support at a much more modest level. This, despite the undisputed fact that understanding our brain, and ultimately ourselves, is the most exciting challenge around. Henry Markram of EPFL in Switzerland   is one of the guys aiming for big, big funding to simulate the complete brain. After founding the brain institute and developing methods to analyze and then reconstruct elements of the brain in a supercomputer he now applies for 1.5 Billion Euro in EU-funding for the 'flagship-projects' of Blue Brain -and many believe his project is simply too big to fail. Some call the project daring, others audacious. It is one of the so very few really expensive life-science endeavours. Why aren't there more like that around? Why do we seem to accept the bills for monstrous physics experiments more easily? Is