I thought I was dying

Pat wrote:
What a strange night it was, last night. I laid down to sleep around
midnight and felt uncomfortable so I got back up. Then I had a painful bout
of "the runs" that lasted an hour or so, and all the while I was feeling
very weird.... There was a sensation of being hugely bloated in my
midsection... so bloated that it felt as if my gut was pressing upward on my
diaphragm to the point I could scarcely breathe and I was going to burst.

For the next two hours I hemmed and hawed over dialing 911, meanwhile trying
to tie up a few loose ends in the house - hang wet laundry, clean up cat
boxes, mop kitchen floor, wash hair, make a list of people to contact if I
ended up in hospital or dead, etc. - all the while keeping the portable
phone handset in range in case I started to faint or something. And all the
cats were following me around looking very worried, which was downright
frightening, knowing how psychic they are.

Around 2:45 AM I sat down at the computer and found an email from Ellie,
sent at 2:30, wanting some PC advice. I emailed back that she could call me.
The phone rang at 3:00 exactly, and I talked with her for almost an hour,
during which time I started to feel sleepy. After we hung up, I again tried
to go to sleep. It was impossible to get comfortable due to a strange new
and absolutely horrendous pain right in the center of my back. It felt like
a freshly broken bone.

I finally fell asleep around 5:30 AM. Billy woke me up a few hours later,
demanding food, and I had NO pain and NO discomfort whatsoever. I was very
glad I hadn't given in to fear during the previous night, for I might have
been waking up in a much different place, needlessly.

Pat,

I'm glad you are okay. Do you think it could have been anxiety, or the
heat? I have problems with anxiety, and I know it can *feel* like
you're dying.

On the other hand, years ago, I had a terribly odd pain in the small of
my back. It wasn't sharp, so I didn't run to the ER. It was a dull
pain, and if any of you have had it, you know that after awhile, it
makes you want to scream.

I was watching old late-night movies, by myself, and somewhere in the
middle of the old "Time Machine", I realized I couldn't focus and I
could no longer take the pain. I drove over to the ER to find out I had
an acute kidney infection because the campus health service (I told you
this was a llloooooonnnggggg time ago) hadn't treated my cystits
thoroughly. I got drugs and pretty much was out of it for that quarter,
but I was glad I went to the ER. Better to be safe that sorry, although
I know what you mean, and my question is always "If I had plenty of
money, would I be going?" If the answer is "Yes", I go, If "No," I don't.

Ginger-lyn

PS I had to laugh about the phone. With all my health stuff and
falling, I tend to carry my phone around the house.

"hopitus" wrote in message
...
On Aug 4, 12:21 pm, "CatNipped" wrote:

Assuming that you're serious about never consenting to a mammogram
because
of a joke...Many of us have found that a mammogram really isn't painful
at
all. It's definitely not something I look forward to, but it also is
not
traumatic. And it is *far* preferable to learning that cancer was in
an
advanced stage before it was detected.
MaryL
It's semi-painful to me - but I don't imagine it's as painful as a
mastectomy (as compared to a lumpectomy) would be - nor nearly as bad as
dying from a "treatable" cancer. I get one every year, and since my
insurance pays 100% for any "preventative" medical procedures, it's
doesn't
cost me a dime - yet I would pay the full cost every year if I had to.
Nose Kisses,
CatNipped
As someone pointed out in another post, there are these days other
options
other than mammos to detect abnormalities; they are more expensive by
far
MRI the worst $$-wise, and Medicare and/or insurance companies will
not
pay for them *in lieu of* a mammo beforehand, but only as a followup
exam
if diagnosis warrents re the mammo films previously.
Because of conditions (NOT cancer) of my tissue which are NOYB I must
submit to "additional views" -- hee hee did you realize something like
that
was possible? - even more uncomfortable than the "routine" views
(positions
to be squashed in by the machine, LOL) but I tolerate them all because
of
what I know about this disease. Yes, males more rarely contract it,
too.
And yes, it can kill them.
Victor's joke was about the procedure, not breast malignancy.
I am no champion of medical care in this country but the alternative
would be
to "doctor yourself", "diagnose yourself", and "cure yourself".If you
are able
to do that, eBay would be a great market for your skills.


LOL! Too funny.

I know what you mean about the "extra views" - I have fibrous cystic breast
disease and have had to have sonograms, MRIs, needle biopsies and, once, a
lumpectomy. When I get an abnormal mammogram it no longer puts me into a
panic.

Nose Kisses,

CatNipped

MaryL -out-the-litter wrote:

Don't worry about it. I responded "just in case" Pat was serious about this
joke convincing her never to have a mammogram. That's too important to
overlook. However, I seriously doubt if this joke -- or your message --
would have anything at all to do with Pat's decision. Just read some of her
previous comments about her views on medical care, and I think that would
actually be the basis of her decision.

Well, in fairness, there is *some* controversy about the effectiveness
of mammograms. They don't necessarily find all breast cancers.

I still get them, though, because I would rather be doing something than
nothing, and it's not like they've been *proven* to be useless. In fact,
mammograms do find early cancers all the time. Besides, I don't know of any
other diagnostic device for breast cancer. So if a mammogram were to fail
to find cancer, I'd be in the same place I would be if I hadn't had one.
Whereas if it does find it, then I'm better off, right?

--
Joyce ^..^

(To email me, remove the X's from my user name.)

William Hamblen wrote:

Sometimes they are. A friend discovered a lump in HIS breast a couple
of years ago and the MD ordered a mammogram. He collected a lot of
funny looks from the ladies in the waiting room. I asked them how
they found enough tissue to squeeze between the plates and he replied
that it wasn't easy. The lump turned out to be a side effect from the
cholesterol lowering medicine he was on.

Men do get breast cancer, so he was right to have it checked out.

--
Joyce ^..^

(To email me, remove the X's from my user name.)

wrote in message
...
MaryL -out-the-litter wrote:

Don't worry about it. I responded "just in case" Pat was serious about
this
joke convincing her never to have a mammogram. That's too important to
overlook. However, I seriously doubt if this joke -- or your message --
would have anything at all to do with Pat's decision. Just read some of
her
previous comments about her views on medical care, and I think that
would
actually be the basis of her decision.

Well, in fairness, there is *some* controversy about the effectiveness
of mammograms. They don't necessarily find all breast cancers.

I still get them, though, because I would rather be doing something than
nothing, and it's not like they've been *proven* to be useless. In fact,
mammograms do find early cancers all the time. Besides, I don't know of
any
other diagnostic device for breast cancer. So if a mammogram were to fail
to find cancer, I'd be in the same place I would be if I hadn't had one.
Whereas if it does find it, then I'm better off, right?

--
Joyce ^..^

(To email me, remove the X's from my user name.)

No, mammograms do not detect all breast cancers. However, they detect
enough -- and detect enought of them early enough -- to save a great many
lives.

MaryL

wrote in message
...
MaryL -out-the-litter wrote:

Don't worry about it. I responded "just in case" Pat was serious about
this
joke convincing her never to have a mammogram. That's too important to
overlook. However, I seriously doubt if this joke -- or your message --
would have anything at all to do with Pat's decision. Just read some of
her
previous comments about her views on medical care, and I think that
would
actually be the basis of her decision.

Well, in fairness, there is *some* controversy about the effectiveness
of mammograms. They don't necessarily find all breast cancers.

I still get them, though, because I would rather be doing something than
nothing, and it's not like they've been *proven* to be useless. In fact,
mammograms do find early cancers all the time. Besides, I don't know of
any
other diagnostic device for breast cancer. So if a mammogram were to fail
to find cancer, I'd be in the same place I would be if I hadn't had one.
Whereas if it does find it, then I'm better off, right?

--
Joyce ^..^

Exactly. It seems to me I've heard about something else that some doctors
recommend in addition to mammograms, but I've never heard of a doctor
recommending you not get one because it might not find cancer. Every few
years I end up having an ultrasound after my mammo, because I am prone to
cysts. I had my first one removed when I was 14 years old. I had another
one removed about 40 years later. In between, and since, I've had them, but
they come and go. I've had a couple of needle biopsies, but the ultrasound
can usually tell they are just cysts, so I haven't had one of those in a
long time. Now whenever they find a lump, I just assume it's another cyst.
So far it always has been. That doesn't keep me from getting my annual
mammo, though. However, my ob-gyn told me I only need 7 more, and then I
can stop getting them. It seems they aren't necessary after you are 80.

Joy

"kilikini" wrote:

Hey, over 1800 men are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. True story.

I had a lumpectomy when I was twelve. Turned out to be benign.
--

Wayne M.

"Joy" wrote in message
.. .
wrote in message
...
MaryL -out-the-litter wrote:

Don't worry about it. I responded "just in case" Pat was serious about
this
joke convincing her never to have a mammogram. That's too important to
overlook. However, I seriously doubt if this joke -- or your
message --
would have anything at all to do with Pat's decision. Just read some
of her
previous comments about her views on medical care, and I think that
would
actually be the basis of her decision.

Well, in fairness, there is *some* controversy about the effectiveness
of mammograms. They don't necessarily find all breast cancers.

I still get them, though, because I would rather be doing something than
nothing, and it's not like they've been *proven* to be useless. In fact,
mammograms do find early cancers all the time. Besides, I don't know of
any
other diagnostic device for breast cancer. So if a mammogram were to fail
to find cancer, I'd be in the same place I would be if I hadn't had one.
Whereas if it does find it, then I'm better off, right?

--
Joyce ^..^

Exactly. It seems to me I've heard about something else that some doctors
recommend in addition to mammograms, but I've never heard of a doctor
recommending you not get one because it might not find cancer. Every few
years I end up having an ultrasound after my mammo, because I am prone to
cysts. I had my first one removed when I was 14 years old. I had another
one removed about 40 years later. In between, and since, I've had them,
but they come and go. I've had a couple of needle biopsies, but the
ultrasound can usually tell they are just cysts, so I haven't had one of
those in a long time. Now whenever they find a lump, I just assume it's
another cyst. So far it always has been. That doesn't keep me from
getting my annual mammo, though. However, my ob-gyn told me I only need 7
more, and then I can stop getting them. It seems they aren't necessary
after you are 80.

Joy

?????!!! Really?! Why aren't they necessary after you are 80? My
grandmother lived to be 104 - so she had 24 more years after 80 in which to
possibly get breast cancer.

Nose Kisses,

CatNipped

CatNipped wrote:


?????!!! Really?! Why aren't they necessary after you are 80? My
grandmother lived to be 104 - so she had 24 more years after 80 in which to
possibly get breast cancer.

I'd guess that because the chances of finding a cancer whose treatment
can extend life would be low at that stage.

These recommendations usually come to a balance between the chances of
any useful result vs the expense and inconvenience of doing the test. So
when the chances of a result that will extend life is fairly low - as
it is in younger women with dense breasts and (I assume) in quite old
women - it's not as worthwhile doing the test.

Naturally, equally qualified doctors can disagree on just how small a
percentage of a positive results is 'important' - how many thousands of
healthy women should have the test if one or two have their life
extended as a result. (I'm guestimating the numbers, but you get the
idea). I suppose that's why recommendations vary.

Cheryl

On Aug 3, 9:44*pm, wrote:
But not *painful*. I
find a blood pressure cuff more painful!

I love you Joyce!!!!

Not had the mammogram yet but finally someone else who doesn't like
blood pressure cuffs- everyone says they don't hurt but I find they
make me feel as if my arm is about to be crushed. I mean the year
before last I had a filling done, one where my dentist took one look
at what had come out and said "Oh my God that's big!" and then had to
drill into the tooth to provide purchase for the screws which were
then screwed in to hold the new filling in place along with a couple
of nails that were hammered into the root canal..and I didn't have any
anaesthesia at all

And I would sooner have that done that blood pressure cuffs...close
run through

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs