Colonoscopy: Is It Worth The Risk?

SeaBreeze

SeaBreeze

Endlessly Groovin'
Location
USA
I personally haven't had one and don't intend to get one. A relative of mine who was very healthy and active had some polyps removed during his colonoscopy and within time developed colon cancer which lead to numerous operations, spread throughout his body and ultimately killed him after suffering with chemo, radiation and all the other 'treatments' they like to give these days. I've also heard of other very serious complications resulting from this procedure.








 

I`m very much on the fence with this one. My husband`s brother died at age 58 of colon cancer-suffered horribly for several years with it. Some of those years it was not yet diagnosed as he chose to just stop eating rather than see a doctor. Not not eating altogether but mostly liquid diet. Had he had a colonoscopy at 50,as recommended,he would most likely be alive today. Then we have a good friend who was diagnosed at 38. Obviously not yet old enough to have had a routine colonoscopy yet and he was at a pretty advanced stage when diagnosed. He is doing great though,8 years post diagnosis,and his PET scans are all clear. So I do like my hubby to have colonoscopies as recommended,but for myself,I think one was enough.
 
Nah, not something I'll ever do. I think my heart or liver will definitely give out first.
 

All invasive procedures have some degree of risk. With a colonoscopy the risk is really minimal. I have had them and there is no pain or discomfort. There are thousands of people alive that might not be because of a colonoscopy detecting cancer early.

It's a No Brainer--------Get it done---------just get a good doc.
 
I have had the procedure four times now as I've already stated in this discussion previously. It is invasive and uncomfortable. But I firmly believe, worth the inconvenience and discomfort, for what it could prevent.
 
Have had three of them. Not a big deal and never had a problem. Found polyps in two of the three procedures, but they were benign. My wife's uncle and a friend of mine both headed off cancer by having the procedure. Definitely in the "just do it" camp. Biggest hassle is the prep, and even that's not a huge deal these days.
 
Lon said:
There are thousands of people alive that might not be because of a colonoscopy detecting cancer early.
Click to expand...

I have trouble believing that statement, I don't see any factual statistics anywhere which prove that. The annual fecal occult test is just as effective, safer, cheaper and less invasive. I'll stick with that but understand that it's a very personal decision for everyone and I respect that.
 
If my husband hadn't had his, he would be dead by now. He had an obstruction. He was wasting away. He went from 225 lbs to 157 in a few short months. He's 6' 7". At first he was purposely cutting back on how much he ate, but after a time we became alarmed. The colonoscopy revealed that his colon was extremely damaged. He had diverticulitis for years. They also found the beginnings of cancer at the ileocecal valve - the place where the small intestine and the colon meet. That's where the obstruction was. Thankfully they found it before it had spread to other areas. He didn't have to have chemo or radiation, but they did remove his entire colon as well as the cancer. It was a lengthy surgery. They did it all through a tiny incision. The surgeon was superb. He hardly has a scar at all now. It's two 1/2 years later. He now wears a bag. Since he was quite sick, there is a difference between him getting one, and the average person doing it. I won't do it as a matter of course because I would have to drink this sugary stuff to prep me, have to fast and that would make me pass out. I'm hypoglycemic.
 
I know that I should get one, just thinking the annual stool sample lab test is sufficient for me.

My wife had colon cancer in 2008, I've seen all the prep(including fasting) and that's the part I'm avoiding.

I get an endoscopy every other year for a benign tumor in stomach, not too bad but not so much prep.
 
No, I have no intention of getting one and my GP doesn't push it anymore, and since I'm a vegetarian and everything seems to be in good working order, I don't feel at risk. I have done the fecal sample thing a few times.
 
It's not done routinely in the UK because of the risks of damage to the intestines, the invasive nature of the procedure and the costs. Flexible sigmoidoscopy and barium enema are the preferred methods as they carry minimal risks and not much prep (nothing except liquids from the evening before, and a laxitive in the morning.)
 
I received a card in the male several months back reminding me that it's time for my second colonoscopy (had 1st one 6 years ago) and I've been putting off scheduling an appointment.

The first one, excluding the day before prep day which was no fun, was no problem for me........IV sedation and no pain or discomfort whatsoever afterwards.

On the first one they found and removed 3 polyps and also informed me that I have mild diverticulitis.

I'm still kicking around having the second one done.
 
Pappy said:
I've had the procedure done three times over the years. The worst part for me, was the cleaning out and stuff I had to drink.
I now have the send in sample, once a year. Much easier at my age.
Click to expand...

Twice for me... and I agree... the prep is the worst. Since I have IBS and have had two bouts of ischemic colitis, I am due for another one next year.. I will NOT hesitate in getting it.. Never heard of a colonoscopy CAUSING colon cancer, but certainly know many people who have been lucky enough to have it caught early with a colonoscopy.. while it was in the early stages or even the pre-cancerous stage..
 
Question;

Because during my first (and only so far) colonoscopy six years ago they found and removed 3 polyps would you be more inclined to have a second one ?
 
IKE said:
Question;

Because during my first (and only so far) colonoscopy six years ago they found and removed 3 polyps would you be more inclined to have a second one ?
Click to expand...
Because they found three in my original, and my father had a similar history, they wanted me back in 5 years. I would do it.
 
You should get one. I'd be dead now if I had neglected it.
After four of them and eight removed (2 each time), I'm now on the 5-yr schedule.

They are not bad, its the preparation that gets you. Just take a portable tv to the bathroom and set it on the sink (you may not have time to actually walk to the bathroom before the "urge" suddenly hits you.) I use popsicles and clear beef bouillon to stave off the hunger for the 24-hr no food period. The worst thing is drinking that "awful stuff" every 15 minutes.

Then when you go in the next morning its all over before you know it. The "sleep" seems like a minute, and its feels so good; you wake up refreshed and wish you could have stayed under for even longer.

They now have take-home tests that can tell if you have polyps now, so maybe we can very soon forego this period of uncomfort.
 
Thanks for the reply Bob.......since you mentioned your dad's history.

Doctor and hospital forms always have a question worded like, "does your family have a medical history of........?, I always just leave it blank.

Because of me leaving home young I have no idea about any of my family medical history and there's no one living that would probably know or that I care to ask.

Exwisehe I'm also on a 5 year checkup (been putting it off about a year) because of the 3 polyps they found and removed the first time........maybe after I get this dental stuff completed and heal up I'll think harder about having one done.

We'll see.
 
My wife's uncle had no symptoms and kept avoiding it, while his wife kept on him to get the procedure done. In the end, she won out. He was about 65 when he had his first procedure. Turned out his had cancer, but they caught it early. Removed a section of his colon and saved his life. One of my co-workers had a similar story. The guy was fit as could be. Went in for a routine test and they found cancer. Small operation and he's fine, doing marathons and triathlons.
 
As most medical "professionals" will say there is always risk and 'a' chance something 'unexpected' that could happen with any medical procedure. One doesn't sign waivers and disclaimers for nothing-it is not just pesky paperwork.

Not only are there risks with procedures a lot of these issues are naturally occurring or progress so slow that the procedures and chemicals pose more complications and risk than the actual condition. Prostate cancer is a prime example. For years they said remove the prostate with so much poor psa numbers. Now they recommend wait and observe not jumping for surgery for removal. Sure there are extreme or advanced cases but are they the rule?


And one must ask-what is life? Life is a chemistry set? A game of operation? The life of a professional patient? Is that a quality of life? Answer is different for many.
 
Prostate cancer is a prime example. For years they said remove the prostate with so much poor psa numbers. Now they recommend wait and observe not jumping for surgery for removal.

TOTALLY WRONG STATEMENT-------The Prostate Gland is never removed or even treated for cancer on just a PSA score no matter how high the PSA.

A BIOPSY IS THE ONLY WAY TO DETERMINE PROSTATE CANCER AND THEN BASED ON THE GLEASON SCORE FROM THE BIOPSY A TREATMENT WILL BE DETERMINED.
 
Lon said:
Prostate cancer is a prime example. For years they said remove the prostate with so much poor psa numbers. Now they recommend wait and observe not jumping for surgery for removal.

TOTALLY WRONG STATEMENT-------The Prostate Gland is never removed or even treated for cancer on just a PSA score no matter how high the PSA.

A BIOPSY IS THE ONLY WAY TO DETERMINE PROSTATE CANCER AND THEN BASED ON THE GLEASON SCORE FROM THE BIOPSY A TREATMENT WILL BE DETERMINED.
Click to expand...

I know people who had their prostate removed and they were told their psa numbers said cancer. There wasn't a tumor or one that affected anything. I came up on a "routine" blood test. The doctor told him it had to be removed. This was a few decades ago but that was the thinking.
 
I know people who had their prostate removed and they were told their psa numbers said cancer. There wasn't a tumor or one that affected anything. I came up on a "routine" blood test. The doctor told him it had to be removed. This was a few decades ago but that was the thinking

STILL WRONG INFORMATION----I had my Prostate Gland surgically removed 25 years ago. My PSA took a big jump from one year to the next and that triggered the need for a Biopsy which confirmed a aggressive cancer.
 
My husband has non-aggressive prostate cancer Gleason 6.. 2 of 12 cores positive, at 10% and 20%. Genetic testing showing nonaggression. His PSA has been drifting downward for the last year. Now has to see the urologist only every 6 months during active surveillance.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top