This forum is for the discussion of anything to do with Prostate Cancer. There are only four rules:
No fundraisers, no commercials (although it is OK to recommend choices of treatment or medical people based on your personal research; invitations to participate in third-party surveys are also acceptable, provided there is no compensation to YANA);
No harvesting e-mail addresses for Spam;
No insults or flaming - be polite and respectful at all times and understand that there may be a variety of points of view, all of which may have some validity;
Opinions are OK, but please provide as much factual evidence as possible for any assertions that you are making
Failure to abide by these simple rules will result in the immediate and permanent suspension of your posting privileges.
Since this is an International Forum, please specify your location in your post.
There is a very complex set of codes by whcih deaths are classified.
For example, if you choose surgery for your diagnosed PCa and die on the table, that will be logged as a surgical death. From memory, your death within two days of the surgery will still be logged that way. After that....well, it all depends. If you were unfortunate enough to get one of these awful diseases that hang around hospitals these days your death would be clasified as that disease....and so it goes.
In a recent press conference discussing the question of whether PSA screening did reduce the number of deaths, Dr Walsh, who supported that view, was asked why the mortality rate had dropped in the UK, when there had not been the same level of PSA screening there. His response was that in the UK, the death of PCa men from pneumonia had been removed from the PCa Death classification, and that made a signficant difference to the outcome.
I suppose my main thought is that if the records & subsequent statistics could show what men were actually suffering ( with/without current treatment )from P.Ca., then would such statistics such as "Death from ", alter a lot ?
Put another way; if the said heart attack etc. had not taken the men, would the problem of P.Ca. be larger in the statistics ? And it's just the 'luck' of another cause of death that shows P.Ca. as a running problem for many, but not actual straight cause of death ?
If so, it would be possible to reduce the statistical significances of P.Ca. wheras in reality it would be a larger problem for many men.
