West Hanney man's brain tumour grew 'for more than a decade'
Previously Charlie had been experiencing headaches, but following an MRI scan in 2011 he was told it was a sinus infection, though he was advised to visit his optician."I kind of left it and when I did have a headache made sure I was wearing my glasses a little bit more," he tells the BBC.After the seizure in 2022 he was booked in for another MRI."They were quite confident there was nothing to worry about, and then I got the phone call about six weeks later that there was something to worry about," he recalls.Charlie was diagnosed with a grade II astrocytoma, a brain tumour that had been visible on a CT scan in 2011, and had grown undetected for more than a decade."The hospital were very quick and honest," Charlie explains."It was very small and they admitted straight away that they missed it."But he said the doctors had since "been brilliant the whole way through".
Charlie has undergone brain surgery twice, and a good amount of the tumour has been successfully removed.He also had six weeks of daily radiotherapy and six months of chemotherapy, which he describes as "really hard going."He now has scans every six months to monitor the tumour.
Charlie's wife Siobhan says finding out about it was "terrifying".But she says: "We very much got on with it... I think it has taken its toll on our children because for two years through the treatment life's a bit chaotic."Siobhan has been taking part in fundraising ever since "because we need more awareness, more research, and ultimately more hope".She is about to take part in the 88 Squats a Day in July challenge for Brain Tumour Research.Katrina Jones, head of community and digital fundraising at the charity, said: "Stories like Charlie's highlight the urgent need for more research into brain tumours, which remain the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40 in the UK."
"At the moment it's all positive stuff, the tumour's stable, but the type of tumour it is, at some point it won't be great news," Charlie says."But what we're doing is making the most of everything and focussing on those six-month scans, and doing anything the doctors tell me to do, and keeping my two boys happy, and doing everything we can with them."
You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X, or Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Vet addresses myths about travelling with dogs in heatwave
Warnings for extreme heat have been extended across much of England, with temperatures expected to reach up to 34C. A French Bulldog died from heatstroke after being trapped in a hot car, prompting experts to issue warnings for pet owners. Aysha Kent, a vet at Blue Cross, urged owners to avoid travelling with pets during the heatwave due to potentially fatal consequences, emphasizing that car temperatures are often higher than perceived. Flat-faced breeds like French Bulldogs, as well as overweight, very young, elderly, or thick-coated pets, are particularly vulnerable to heatstroke. Owners are advised to skip normal walks, provide chilled treats and shade, and recognize heatstroke symptoms like excessive panting or collapse, seeking immediate veterinary attention if observed.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
When the time comes to die, what end-of-life care would doctors choose for themselves?
The uncustomary quiet of a Sunday morning in the emergency department is broken by a universally relevant question. 'And if your heart were to suddenly stop beating, what would you like us to do?' Standing outside, all I hear is a garbled response. 'That's right,' the voice reassures. 'You wouldn't want us jumping on your chest, would you?' It seems to me that the doctor is having a one-way conversation, the kind I am about to have with my patient. Following a bad fall months ago, my patient can't speak or move. I wonder what 'further functional decline' could possibly entail but her nursing home has sent her to emergency. She has pneumonia and a high sodium level not compatible with life. Yet, when I stand next to her and take her hand in mine, she smiles at me, displaying not an iota of distress. The mild pneumonia might not take her life, but the untreated sodium level almost certainly will. What to do? Antibiotics and fluids or not? 'What would you like me to do?' I muse, hoping she will magically answer. She smiles benignly. I am torn. The doctor in the adjoining cubicle clearly doesn't want her patient undergoing CPR. I can't see how 'saving' my own patient from death would accord her better quality of life. Each doctor is making an irrevocable decision about a patient, its enormity compounded by the fact that both patients have limited capacity to participate in the conversation. But what if the patient asked, 'Doctor, if you were in my situation, what would you do?' Do doctors treat patients in the same way they would want to be treated at the end of life? A new study sheds some light on this issue. Researchers surveyed 1,157 doctors including GPs, palliative care physicians and other medical specialists working in diverse areas including Canada, Belgium and Italy, as well as the American states of Oregon, Wisconsin and Georgia, and the Australian states of Victoria and Queensland. These communities range from being socially progressive to religiously conservative to secular, with varying laws around assisted dying. The study presented doctors with two end-of-life scenarios. In one, they have Alzheimer's disease. They don't recognise loved ones, refuse oral intake and are more withdrawn. In the second, they have advanced cancer not amenable to treatment. They are experiencing severe pain and agitation, have a prognosis of no more than two weeks, and are competent to make decisions. In each case, a palliative care provider and the option of inpatient hospice is available. With preferences for end-of-life decisions including CPR, hydration, tube feeding, intensifying symptom alleviation, deep sedation until death and, where legal, assisted dying, doctors were asked to rate their own preferences from 'a very good option' to 'not at all a good option'. Across all jurisdictions, physicians universally rejected the idea of CPR and mechanical ventilation (preferred by less than 1%), tube feeding (less than 4%) and intravenous hydration (about 20%). Of all physicians, over 90% considered it important to intensify symptom relief and just over half considered euthanasia a good or very good option. Notably, a third of physicians would consider using medications at their disposal to end their own life. There are many interesting findings (regrettably, behind a paywall) but the bottom line is that when it comes to their own end-of-life care, doctors use their lived experience of medicine to choose differently, and arguably, more wisely. This should give patients and doctors food for thought. We are living in an era of medicine that often conflates more with better, an especially vexed issue at the end of life. In my own field of oncology, despite real concerns about time toxicity, overtreatment is believed to be a professionally sanctioned approach. No oncologist wants to be seen to 'do nothing' even if eschewing aggressive and harmful treatments in favour of quality of life is the opposite of doing nothing. But the more I look around, I can't help thinking that oncologists are unfairly cast as the worst offenders when evidence of futile interventions is rife across healthcare. How do grossly impaired patients end up being tube-fed? Why are frail, elderly people attached to ventilators? Why do unconscious patients receive antibiotics in their final days? Frankly, these events happen because patients or relatives demand them, and doctors find themselves unwilling or unable to say no. The desire for a good death is as universal as the fact of dying. The researchers of this study should be commended. If I were a patient, here is how I might use the study findings to help myself. Instead of directly asking my treating doctor(s) what they would do in my situation (and risk a non-answer), I would inquire what factors they would consider in reaching a crucial medical decision. I would acknowledge that personal preferences vary and explain that their library of experiences might deepen my understanding of what to do. As a physician, this study reminds me of the privilege of my role which gives me a sound basis for making highly consequential decisions. The question is how to use my knowledge and experience to empower my patients without blurring the line between personal bias and professional guidance. I believe this is possible by listening carefully to patients' stated goals and including the views of their loved ones. These conversations need time and trust, which is what underpins good doctor-patient communication. End-of-life decisions are a sensitive and complex situation, but one thing is evident to me. If doctors clearly favour less aggressive measures at the end of life, their patients deserve to know why. Ranjana Srivastava is an Australian oncologist, award-winning author and Fulbright scholar. Her latest book is called A Better Death
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Anne Wojcicki's nonprofit gets court approval to buy 23andMe for $305 million
Anne Wojcicki's bid to buy 23andMe, the genetic testing company she cofounded nearly 20 years ago, has received the court greenlight. That means Wojcicki's nonprofit TTAM Research Institute will purchase 'substantially all' of San Francisco-based 23andMe's assets for $305 million. The transaction — which arrives more than three months after 23andMe filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy — is set to officially close in the coming weeks. 'I am thrilled that TTAM will be able to build on the mission of 23andMe to help people access, understand and benefit from the human genome," Wojcicki said in a statement Monday — later adding that, "the future of health care belongs to all of us.' The sale, which was approved by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Brian C. Walsh on Friday, marks the end of a monthslong bidding war between TTAM and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals — a biotech company that had previously agreed to buy most of 23andMe's assets for $256 million in May. But Wojcicki's nonprofit later topped that offer, winning the final round of bidding held last month. Under the deal, TTAM will acquire 23andMe's signature 'Personal Genome Service" provided through the company's saliva-based DNA testing kits — as well as research operations and its Lemonaid Health subsidiary, a telehealth services provider that 23andMe previously planned to wind down. Wojcicki had worked to take 23andMe private for some time. With the company struggling to find a profitable business model since going public in 2021, she's maintained that it would operate better outside market pressures. But that endeavor proved to be tumultuous — notably in September of last year, when all of 23andMe's independent directors resigned from its board citing a 'clear' difference of opinion with Wojcicki on the company's future following drawn-out negotiations. Leading up to 23andMe's March bankruptcy filing, subsequent efforts from Wojcicki to acquire the company were unsuccessful. And when 23andMe filed for Chapter 11 in late March, Wojcicki resigned as CEO — noting at the time that she was stepping down to be 'in the best position' as an independent bidder. Now that Wojcicki's nonprofit will acquire 23andMe, it's unclear whether the co-founder will step back into the CEO seat. But despite stepping down from the top post months ago, Wojcicki has remained on the company's board throughout the bankruptcy process. Beyond financial strains leading up to 23andMe's bankruptcy, privacy concerns related to customers' genetic information also emerged — dating back to even before the bankruptcy process with a 2023 data breach. But concern what new ownership could mean for 23andMe users' personal data has bubbled up in recent months. The genetic testing business had about 13 million customers at the time of its sale hearing, court documents note. In June, 27 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit seeking to block the sale of personal genetic data by 23andMe without customer consent. And in a memorandum opinion outlining his approval 23andMe's sale to TTAM on Friday, Walsh acknowledged these states' objections to the acquisition — but that noted many had since been resolved. Still, California, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah 'remain actively opposed to the sale." In a statement to Politico on Monday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office maintained that 23andMe's sale 'does not comply' with genetic privacy law in the state — and said it was 'disappointed' with the court's approval, adding that it was evaluating next steps. The Associated Press reached out to Bonta's office and 23andMe for further comments on Tuesday. When announcing its intended sale to Wojcicki's nonprofit last month, 23andMe confirmed that TTAM 'has affirmed its commitment' to comply with the company privacy policies and applicable law. That means TTAM will honor existing policies around consumer data, the company said, which includes allowing users to delete their data and 'opt out' of research. All customers will be emailed at least two business days before the acquisition closes — with details on TTAM's privacy commitments and instructions on how to delete data or opt out of research, 23andMe said. The company added that TTAM will offer customers two years of Experian identity theft monitoring at no cost. 23andMe reiterated those privacy policies on Monday. And Wojcicki added that, 'Core to my beliefs is that individuals should be empowered to have choice and transparency with respect to their genetic data and have the opportunity to continue to learn about their ancestry and health risks as they wish."
