Early on, when my oncologist had to complete my insurance paperwork, she wrote "palliative," and I panicked. At our follow-up meeting, I asked her if this meant I was heading for end-of-life hospice care. She reassured me: "No, it just means the cancer is not curable."
Over time, though, I’ve come to feel that the palliative label carries a more subtle implication for Stage 4 lung cancer patients: that proactive treatments which might extend survival aren’t typically offered unless symptoms demand it.
I hesitate to say “the system is giving up on advanced LC patients” - the phrasing is too emotionally loaded - but there does seem to be an element of cost–benefit analysis at work. Something along the lines of: How much effort should be spent adding two months to the life of a terminal patient, at the expense of other patients or of investing in prevention and early detection?
It’s a harsh calculation, but in a world of limited resources, it’s the kind of decision healthcare systems have to make. This is partly why guidelines exist. They shield oncologists from having to make these agonizing life-and-death decisions; they can rely on “the protocol.”
Yet, the science is changing faster than the paperwork. New treatments can now extend Stage 4 survival not by a couple of months but by many. This is no longer the cancer of a decade ago, and the protocols must be revised to reflect this progress.
Bureaucracies are slow to move by their very nature; for patients with terminal cancer, however, that slow pace is glacially slow. Time is a finite resource we simply do not have the luxury to waste waiting for the system to catch up.
![]() |
| Victory Memorial Park & Funeral Centre |











