Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Upbeat Attitude Doesn't Affect Cancer 82

Posted by Hemos from the it-still-kills-you dept.
Reality Master 101 writes "Defying years of conventional wisdom, researchers announced that your attitude doesn't influence your outcome, and 'patients shouldn't feel pressured to stay positive'. I particularly liked the phrase, 'the tyranny of positive thinking'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Upbeat Attitude Doesn't Affect Cancer More

Upbeat Attitude Doesn't Affect Cancer

Comments Filter:

  • So? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @09:26AM (#4650451) Homepage Journal
    It may not save your life to think positive. But if you are skulking and depressed your final days wont be pleasant ones. Everyone, cancer or not, should do thinks that make them happy and think positively all the time. Your lifetime is limited, even if you are very healthy. Make the most of it and don't waste time by being depressed.

    • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ClosedSource ( 238333 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @09:35AM (#4650517)
      "Make the most of it and don't waste time by being depressed."

      I appreciate the sentiment, but we should be careful about suggesting that depression is a choice.

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Iamthefallen ( 523816 ) <Gmail name: Iamthefallen> on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @09:39AM (#4650545) Homepage Journal
      But being forced into positive thinking isn't that good either. While anyone can muster a smile, it doesn't mean they're amused. Having the extra weight of having to be happy happy happy might push a person deeper into a depression if they're inclined to go that way. Sometimes it is nice to simply sulk and be miserable, a longterm depression is an issue, to allow yourself the luxury of a bit of selfpity isn't necessarily a bad thing.

      • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @10:29AM (#4650887)
        Not only that, but it's important for people to listen to the dying. If someone is nearing the end, catheterized, bedridden, having problems with shortness of breath, and dependent on pain medication and they feel crappy about it, they need to be listened to just as much as anybody else needs to talk about their recent crappy grade on a test.

        I think that's the most killer part of the 'tyrrany of happiness' - if you try to force someone to be happy, you deny them their emotions. Someone dying of cancer might have few forms of dignity left other than expressing his or her feelings, and trying to make them cheer up is only going to make them feel that much more alone and make death that much more of a miserable experience.

        • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Iamthefallen ( 523816 )
          Indeed, by telling them to cheer up, it's not so bad, you're belittling their pain and agony, which will probably make them feel a lot worse since it seems no one understands just what they're feeling. This is the case for mostly all forms of depression, support the person and help them see the positive things, but never try to bullshit them. There are always positive things around to point out, there's no need to invent them.

      • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by macdaddy357 ( 582412 )
        Amen. Telling yourself that dogshit is roses doesn't make it so. If you are dying, that sucks! Only actually being dead could be worse. If I had to spend my last days with happy sunshiney phonies, or self agrandizing charity people who think sending me to Disneyland will make it all better, I'd get a rifle, and find a bell tower.

      • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dunedan ( 529179 )
        you can't be forced into positive thinking. You can be forced into positive acting

        I think it is good to encourage people to have a happy outlook

        I think it is bad to do the above without a good enough relationship w/ the patient to tell if they are "faking".

      • Good points on both sides (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RetiredMidn ( 441788 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @02:13PM (#4652936) Homepage
        I was diagnosed with cancer a little over four years ago. Somehow, I managed to take a positive outlook on it. (If you'd asked me to predict my reaction beforehand, and if I'd answered honestly, I'd have predicted that I would have melted down.) I found that if I woke up in the morning committed to projecting a positive attitude, I actually started to feel it.

        Where I do think it helped is getting through the discomfort and especially the chemo. I think it also made me more approachable by my friends and colleagues, and their willingness to talk and listen was a significant source of strength through that time.

        Nonetheless, even as a new believer in the power of positive thinking, one of the most irritating phenomena I faced was the advice that my attitude was all-important, and the (perhaps unintended) implication that a bad outcome would be my own fault if I didn't smile.

        Positive thinking is it's own reward, whether it's medically efficacious (sp?) or not. But one must be very careful about pressuring people to adopt the attitude and becoming part of the problem instead.

        • one of the most irritating phenomena I faced was the advice that my attitude was all-important, and the ... implication that a bad outcome would be my own fault...

          No kidding, buddy. When I got discouraged or bummed out, I felt like I was "not doing my part", "letting everybody down" -> vicious circle. Like you can help feeling bummed out sometimes during such an episode (even if you've got some peculiar reactions to make it mostly positive).

          (I never did hold with the positive-thinking theory, but these ideas are so pervasive you pick 'em up unintentionally.)
      • This is true. Telling me I need to smile is a real good way to get on my shit list for the day. OTOH, an overall not-depressed attitude can probably help the immune system so that you're at least not dealing with *another* sickness on top of your cancer.

    • Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Uma Thurman ( 623807 )
      But if you are skulking and depressed your final days wont be pleasant ones.

      And cancer also means that your final days won't be pleasant ones. Quit trying to put a happy face on dying. There's really nothing good about it. Getting old is also way overrated too. And don't even get me going on hair loss.

      There's something valuable about looking at the world with a sense of reality. Some things are good, and some things are bad.

      If it's not important to see the bad things as they really are, to smile and pretend that the situation isn't grim, then PLEASE just legalize drugs and just let me do that all the time thank you very much.

      Until then, a realistic view is the only one that has hope of being a constructive one.

      This wasn't a flame, it was just a presentation of the opposite viewpoint in a debate. Just making sure that's clear.
      • Getting old may be overrated, but failing to get old is clearly worse.

        Timothy Leary took an interesting viewpoint toward his mortality in his last months. Don't know if it was "healthy" or not, don't know if I could take it as philosophically as he did, either.

        There's something to be said for trying to leave your loved ones as prepared as you can, and that means emotionally as well as financially.

        (I have a co-worker who is probably terminal, so these thoughts have been close, lately.)
        • So getting old might be a means of easing the impact of your death on everyone else? He was old and lived a good life, he's dead now, and that's not so bad?

          Or he had cancer, but he was positive, he's dead now, so that's not so bad?

          That's worth consideration
          • Two separate issues entirely.

            IMHO, getting old is better than dying young, all else equal.

            As for "not so bad because he was old and lived a good life," there is a kernel of truth to that. I certainly hope for my kids to bury me, and would be devastated at the converse. Eventually, we're all supposed to make room for our descendents. (metaphorically as well as physically)

            Getting cancer is no good, no matter how you slice it. But how you approach your end will have an effect on your loved ones after your gone. I don't think that's quite "not so bad because he was positive."

    • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by R.Caley ( 126968 )
      Make the most of it and don't waste time by being depressed.

      Some of us like being depressed.

    • Having an attitude that everything is terrible and having an attitude that everything is going to fail, and everything in your life is doomed. are completely different attitudes that often get lumped together. If you com at something with the attitude that something is terrible, then you have a motivation to do something about it that you just don't have while being happy, but if you think that everything is doomed you think that there's no point in even trying.

  • In other news... (Score:4, Funny)

    by JHMirage ( 570086 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @09:39AM (#4650542)
    Researchers find that "certain pants do not, in fact, reduce or enlarge the size of women's posteriors."

    "Wives across the country can now stop asking their husbands if they look fat in this or that article of clothing" claims Harvey Lechbetter, lead analyst for the prestigious Cloth Foundation, which sponsored the clinical trials.

  • Misleading (Score:3, Interesting)

    by csbrooks ( 126129 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @09:55AM (#4650641) Homepage
    The headline and text of this post are, I believe, misleading. It makes it sound as if researchers the world over have all come to the same conclusion, which of course isn't true. This is just one study. Big whoop. There are a bajillion studies out there, and pretty much any viewpoint you want to espouse is represented by at least one of them.

    I'm really annoyed with the faith people put in "scientific studies". Many studies (not necessarily this one) are funded by corporations, and the scientists are under pressure to come to whatever conclusion the corporation wants.

    Also, IMO, Science definately has *NOT* figured out what affect the human mind can have on human health, and how, regardless of this single study.

    -csbrooks

    • Your point is well taken that one scientific study should not be taken to be a perfect reflection of reality.

      However, I think you paint with too broad a brush to say that many scientific studies are corporately funded. I suppose it depends on your field, but I would be surprised to hear about intensive corporate funding of fields outside pharmaceuticals. My own field doesn't see a lot of corporate funding, but plenty of government funding instead. Even so, scientists may be pressured (even contractually obligated) not to publish findings that reflect poorly on a corporate product, this is different from being pressured to actually falsify data. And even if the occassional rogue scientist does this - they get discredited when people fail to replicate their work.

      The upshot of all of this is - scientists don't offer their results as proof of some fact, poorly trained science reporters do. And while there are many, many blind alleys in any scientific field, this is due to the scientific process itself, not a culture of corruption as you imply.

      Now, I'm young and as I said my own field doesn't generally get corporate sponsorship, so perhaps I'm still a bit of a wide-eyed idealist. *shrug*

    • Re:Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tiedyejeremy ( 559815 )
      Misleading is an understatement. The headline suggests that everyone has thought one thing is now making a complete turnaround in their beliefs.

      This paragraph is quite telling in the real story:
      " Researcher Mark Petticrew, PhD, and colleagues examined 26 studies assessing the role of psychological coping styles on cancer recurrence and survival, and concluded that none conclusively linked any one style to positive outcomes. "

      They [Petticrew & colleagues] are not even talking about the results of their own study, but a study of 26 studies whose net result is that the big picture is inconclusive.

      Sheesh - talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

    • What's the alternative? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:27PM (#4652481) Journal

      I'm really annoyed with the faith people put in "scientific studies".

      What do you suggest people put their faith in when it comes to health matters? Alternative medicine? Prayer/God? Their own gut feeling/experiences? I would argue that all these are obviously much more dubious than scientific studies when it comes to something important like your health. Granted, scientific studies are often wrong. But eventually the truth will come out. People put faith in scientific studies because (1) they are performed by intelligent, cautious people, (2) they're gonna get reviewed by other intelligent, cautious people, (3) people have seen how science has lead to incredible medical breakthroughs in the past.

      Also, IMO, Science definately has *NOT* figured out what affect the human mind can have on human health, and how, regardless of this single study.

      And what are you basing your opinion on? Your exhaustive search of the medical literature? Your own personal research? A chat with a medical friend over drinks? I'm guessing it's just your gut feeling. I happen to agree with you on this but I find it odd that you decry the faith people put in scientific studies and then follow that up with your own faith-based (not talking reglious here) statement.

      If you want to be annoyed with something, then target your frustration at science reporting in the mainstream media. Or direct your anger at our pathetic science education system that gives most people a poor understanding of the scientific process. Don't get pissed off about the fact that people look to science for the answers to life's most vexing questions. It's not flawless but it's the best system we got.

      GMD

      • You actually have some good points here, and I probably should have clarified my viewpoint more.

        I guess I should say "I'm really annoyed with the faith the media put in a single 'scientific study'." I'm basing my viewpoint on my own experience with the media; single scientific studies, often taken out of context, and by their nature brand-new and *NOT* yet extensively reviewed by peers, are frequently cited as proof of whatever sensational thing the media thinks will get people's attention.

        -csbrooks

  • Not exactly set in stone (Score:4, Interesting)

    by quantax ( 12175 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @10:07AM (#4650718) Homepage
    While this study may be mostly true, psychocematic (sp) healing is a reality though it does not apply to everything. Having a great outlook on life while you have Ebola Ziare is not going to increase your survival rate merely since the virus is extremely deadly and powerful. With something lesser though like a flu, cold, etc, it does help since your body is equiped to deal with the problem in the first place. Cancer is serious; even now we do not fully understand it, and it is not as simple as cells attacking foreign cells in your body. This mental healing seems to apply best when the person sick already has an edge over the ailment. While this is by no means an exact science, do not discredit it merely because 1 study said so for 1 particular problem. There is no garentee that this study is totally correct either, so be skeptical on all levels.
  • If you're going to die, you might as well die happy. If I'm diagnosed with something terminal, I'm not going to spend the last days of my life sulking around. What a waste that would be..

    • Re:Heh, what the hell? (Score:5, Funny)

      by andyt ( 149701 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @10:50AM (#4651053)
      Sod that. Who on earth remembers the dull happy ones?

      If I find out that I'm going to die soon, I'm gonna be the loudest, whiniest most obnoxious patient anyone has ever seen. I want people to think of me in 10 years time as "that crochety bastard who made my life hell".

      And after I die, I want to be cremated and my ashes poured into the petrol tank of my Doctor.

      I may not be remembered fondly, but they won't forget me in a hurry!

      • Re:Heh, what the hell? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Zordak ( 123132 )
        This reminds me of when we go to church with my wife's parents. There's this old guy there who is basically deaf and likes to make snide comments "under his breath" (meaning, of course, that the comments are quite loud and are caught by the whole congregation). I think it's the coolest thing I've ever seen, and I swear he does it on purpose. More than once, he's managed to shut up a long-winded speaker. I now look forward to being a cranky old goat so that I too can get away with making loud, rude comments in church.
      • And after I die, I want to be cremated and my ashes poured into the petrol tank of my Doctor.

        Amature. When I die I'm going to be cremated and put in my doctors chocolate milk mix.
  • Is if you know where you're going to spend eternity. There's only one way [jesuswho.org] to do that.

    Religions in this world fall in two categories:

    1) You only get to heaven/paradise by doing enough good works to earn it;

    or

    2) Accept the free gift of salvation from Jesus Christ by admitting you (like every other person here today) are a sinner, and that you need the power of Jesus.

    With that hope, dying isn't as big a deal.

    Note to those who are unaware: category (1) includes Televangelists, Catholicism, Hinduism, Mormonism, and most Protestant denominations. Since they teach "works" salvation, they are not teaching what the Bible teaches.
    • Are you suggesting that religion is the cure? And this is on-topic how?
    • Religion is the opiate of the masses.

    • Re:The only true Hope (Score:4, Funny)

      by andyt ( 149701 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @11:42AM (#4651467)
      2) Accept the free gift of salvation from Jesus Christ...

      "Free when you convert now. But hurry, this offer must end soon...."

      oh, oh, wait..

      "Try Heaven free for 30days with JhC as part of our no-risk offer. That's right, absolutely free...."

      • Re:The only true Hope (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Yes indeed, the offer will end when you die - so don't delay. Eternity is forever.

    • Sorry to get onto an off-topic religious rant, but may I remind the original poster that "Sic et fides, si opera non habuerit, mortua est per se" (James 2:17). And personally, I'd rather worship God in deed and attitude, you know, actually go an help someone instead of spouting empty sophistry to the needy. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

    • Isn't (2) a subset of (1)? That is to say, you are presenting acceptance of the free gift of salvation as the good work necessary to salvation.

      In other words (1) and (2) are not mutually exclusive.

    • With that hope, dying isn't as big a deal.

      But would it even be a big deal *without* that hope? I mean, really --- is nothingness really so ghastly that the only solace that can be achieved before it is belief in some doubleplus sequel to life? Why does non-existence haunt you?

      Natch, eventual obliteration is much scarier if you posit that you might end up in some eternal barbecue pit... which is why I don't posit such dark fantasies. When I'm dead, I intend to be a lump of putrescing organic molecules, thanks. No rent, no irascible nerve endings, no eight-thirty class... Hot damn, I'm surprised no one is selling tickets.

    • Note to those who are unaware: category (1) includes ... most Protestant denominations. Since they teach "works" salvation, they are not teaching what the Bible teaches.

      Hmm, not quite sure where you get that from. Admittedly the situation in the US may be different, but here in Oz, under the AOG (which is a large collection of Pentecostal churches) I don't think I have _ever_ heard works teaching - quite the opposite.

      (I don't usually post on religious topics given the well-known bias here on /., but this is my 2c+GST.)

      (Bleh, why doesn't Slashcode allow <u>?)

  • I know this is anecdotal, but... when doctors found that my mother had a second cancer, they told her when they thought it had started. It happened to be six months earlier, exactly when she had learnt that her brother had a late-stage cancer discovered and v.soon died. The fact that my brother and I spent almost every day with our mother helped her immensely to overcome grief and find the strength to go through cancer treatment, battle depression, and survive. Positive thinking, close support, and adequate medication go a long way; I'm convinced any missing part would be an obstacle to recovery/survival.
  • There must be some greater force at work to make people believe that happy meals are such.

  • this only deals with cancer (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hythlodaeus ( 411441 ) on Tuesday November 12, 2002 @01:04PM (#4652222)
    A positive outlook does correlate with a higher number of immune system T-cells, increasing resistance to most infectious diseases. (Search Google if you want a reference.) It's not surprising this doesn't help with cancer, since cancer wouldn't be a problem in the first place if the immune system actually recognized it as a problem.
  • You get HIV when you commit sins in this avtaar and get cancer if you had committed sins in previous avtaar.

    Quite frankly, we typically blame things which we can't understand, on something which is even harder to understand.

  • I recall a few months ago that there was an article here on slashdot [slashdot.org] that said we didn't need 64 oz of water per day, saying that this was probably superfluous, and was dismissed for the fair part as pseudoscience. Perhaps this is Yet Another one of these bits?

  • Their stats... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Transcendent ( 204992 )
    Researcher Mark Petticrew, PhD, and colleagues examined 26 studies assessing the role of psychological coping styles on cancer recurrence and survival, and concluded that none conclusively linked any one style to positive outcomes.

    Now that is just one huge vague statement full of meaningless words. They didn't even define how many patients were in each study. Because of this, we are forced to assume that only one patient was in each study -- giving too much charity to an arguement is a bad thing.

    First, a group of 26 patients is HARDLY enough to make ANY real conclusion. 26 out of how many millions that have had cancer? And what type of cancer did these people have? It would be like asking a small city in the middle of nowhere what they thought about certian world issues... the results would be just as representative.

    Second, they say that none "conclusively linked any one style to positive outcomes." Well of course they wouldn't. In a case of 26 "studies", there are probably 26 different unique "styles". This would only allow them to document one outcome for each style... which of course would not be anything to make a conclusion out of.

    This type of journalism is horrible... it's on the verge of tabloid.

    "We certainly aren't saying that a positive mental attitude is not beneficial," Petticrew tells WebMD. "I think the message here is that while it is good to think positively, it is also OK to feel bad. It is probably not going to influence your outcome."

    This statement gives a very broad conclusion, and somewhat contradictory. They say nothing definitively here. You could sum it up by saying, "Positive atitude may or may not have an influence on your outcome."

    I think they should have waited untill they made a more conclusive find in relation to this before they went public with their results (which again, really say nothing).

  • Robert R. Provine's book _Laughter_ (2000, Viking) talks about the incredible media bias that feeds such controversies. He says, "Over the years, I have been contacted by many print and broadcast reporters.. about 'laughing your way to health.' My message that the literature about laughter and health is not all it seems..was as welcome as a skunk at a picnic."

    Three small, inadequately-controlled studies by Lee Burk and colleagues on laughter-related increases in immune system function are the basis of much of the folklore about how great it is for your health.

    Research contradicting it rarely gets into the popular press. Provine mentions 7-decade study following 1178 males and females which found, surprisingly, that "cheerfulness (opimism and a sense of humor) in childhood to be inversely related to survival in middle to old age. Oddly, conscientiousness was related to survival..."

    Provine also cites an editorial by Marcia Angell in the New England Journal of Medicine (1985) as saying "the current evidence for mental states' affecting the cause or cure of disease is largely folklore..."

    One of the vital functions of science is to make us pay attention to things we don't want to hear. We can rely on the media to tell us what we want to hear (You deserve a break today, a new car will make you sexy), but the role of science is different.

    BTW most of Provine's book is a lot more fun to read than the parts I quoted--he's done a lot of scholarly research, including going up to strangers in malls and asking them to laugh, that is great fun to read about. If I ever have time, I am definitely submitting a book review on it, because it is the definitive nerd book on laughter.

  • If we just look towards the future, all of this "having a positive attitude doesn't matter" stuff will pass - we just need to stay strong and keep the faith. I personally have eight forms of a cancer myself, as well as the Ebola virus and AIDS. The doctors say that I should be dead already. Even as I write, my medula oblongata, my heart, kidneys and lungs are currently functioning at .01% of normal. Though the power of positive thinking, I've been able to stay alive this way for the past 30 years on a diet of raw eggs and hamster bedding, and I can do everything a normal person can. Plus, I can fly and move things with my mind. You just have to know how to fight it- with smiles.

    You too can live past the pain of cancer with the right attitude! I've outlined it all in my book, which can be yours for only 129.95. Don't delay - your life is waiting for you.

    Just send $129.95 to...
  • This is actually an important subject, as trite as it sounds, because what i think they are getting at is NOT that laughter doesn't help, but that, in the words of one survivor, "Cancer doesn't give a rat's ass whether you have a positive mental outlook."

    The point isn't that people with good attitudes don't have a better chance; the point is that the general public for a very long time has been encouraged to believe that cancer is affected more by the mental than by the physical, and this leads to a lot of misconceptions about cancer. There's no question that laughter, or even the anticipation of laughter, is good for you. It boosts endorphins, it helps the immune system, but while these things may make cancer easier to deal with symptomatically, they don't address the underlying causative issues, and the implied connections encourage people to believe that you just aren't playing or praying hard enough.

    The point here, of this article and the growing movement behind it, is that people feel guilty- horribly, horrendously, unnecessarily guilty- when they get sick or have to watch someone else get sick, and it's going to take a lot to make that social environment change. I volunteer time to help a group of people online who deal with chronic illnesses, and this study is of unimaginable relevance to them. It means that for once, someone in the medical community is shaking their head and saying- by the way, it's not your fault that you have cancer. You should do everything you can to stay upbeat, but the 'cure' doesn't exist yet, it's not your failure to utilise this particular 'cure' that is keeping you from being healthy.

    And that's important. That's important on a lot of levels, and treatment is one of them, because when a patient knows that they don't have to fake their way into a smile every day, they can get down to processing the very real grief and loss that go with a chronic illness- and this can substantially increase their quality of life, however long that life may extend. I've had to watch people day in and day out coping with this, and feeling worse because those around them feel that they must stay cheerful in order to survive. It becomes the last defense for a lot of family members who can't otherwise deal with having someone near them sick- to blame it on the patient, to try to make sense out of it by describing it as a failing- they were sick and they just lost hope, so they didn't get better... Just as it's beginning to be recognised in the medical community that depression is a symtpom of, and not the cause of, many other illnesses. Remember when ulcers were entirely attributed to stress?

    I'm all in favour of a positive mental outlook. But i'm not in favour of letting our prejudice for cheerful patients create a false image of what it takes to get through it- good cheer and optimism are only a part of the puzzle. Bad things really do happen to good people, and being a better person isn't always going to make it stop. I think this article is a good start- and i think it's true. Cancer doesn't care. We care, so we will cling to anything that we can. And miracles do happen, but not necessarily because of the reasons that we attribute them to. As we come to understand illnesses better, there may be more studies like this, just to remind people that while we hold a lOT of power to change things, we need to know where the buttons are before we can press them- and a smile apparently didn't do it for an illness like cancer.

    However, i'll keep reading the funny pages and slashdot comments, because passing the funny ones along seems to at least have cheered people up. (and there are occasional ward uprisings... do you hear a sound, as of somebody playing with the wiring? um- gotta go check and see what folks are feeling energetic enough to be destroying today!!!)

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've got some amyls. We could either party later or, like, start his heart." -- "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie"

Close