More than 47 percent of people view their pets as family members, according to a 2002 American Veterinary Medical Association survey. It makes sense then that people are routinely treating their pets for ailments that might strike a family member -- like arthritis, heart disease, diabetes, allergies, dementia, obesity, and yes, cancer.

New studies show that Americans are stuffing their pets with more drugs than ever before. They are medicating their dogs, cats, and sometimes other pets as much as they medicate themselves -- and they are doing it with many of the same human drugs they use for themselves, like steroids for inflammation, antibiotics for infection, anti-depressants for anxiety, and even new slendering drugs for obesity.

It's a big market -- pharmaceuticals for pets -- and for those who love their pets so much they can't let go, going to extremes is worth every penny.

Think about this:

• For dogs and cats alone, Americans spent $2.9 billion on pet drugs in 2005. While this is equal to only one percent of human drug sales, the market has grown by half since 2000.

• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved more than 40 new pet drugs in the past five years.

• A single three-month course of pet chemotherapy can cost $3,000 -- and chemotherapy doesn't typically extend the life of an animal as much as it soothes symptoms of the disease.

• Health insurance for pets was nearly invisible in 2002 but has gained popularity over the past few years. Premiums can cost $30 per month, and the total market is expected to climb to $500 million in the next five years.

• Some human drugs leave pets with unexpected, sometimes deadly, side effects. The drug Rimadyl, made by Pfizer and used as a treatment for dogs with arthritis, has been shown to cause kidney and liver damage in some animals. More than 3,000 pet deaths have been attributed to this drug.

• Some question the priorities of a society that allows for medically treating pets like they are humans. Dianne Dunning, an ethicist at N.C. State's vet school is concerned that millions of animals are lost, unwanted, and euthanized while millions are spent on pet medicines. David Rothman, an expert in medicine's role in society from Columbia University, says, "If you can't get malaria drugs in some Third World countries, what are we doing with chemotherapy for cats?"

• Others don't flinch at the expense it requires to keep their pets alive. One man, whose dog was expected to die of lymphoma within weeks, still enjoys the company of his pet some two years later. Chemotherapy saved the dog's life and when asked if he thinks the drugs are too expensive, this man says NO -- because his dog is still here.
  

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and Bare Escentuals, a company that offers a makeup line of products made from 100 percent pure bareMinerals -- free of preservatives, talc, oil, fragrance and other skin irritants -- will be featuring a limited edition Pink Passion Rose Radiance Collection.

According to Bare Escentuals, all profits from the three-piece collection -- i.d. bareMinerals Rose Radiance All-Over Face Color, i.d. Rose Radiance Lip Gloss and the i.d. Heavenly Face Brush -- are going to the National Breast Cancer Foundation.

In an effort to celebrate mothers, daughters, girlfriends and women everywhere as they embrace life, renew hope and fulfill their dreams Bare Escentuals encourages all women to Think Pink this October.

According to the company website, Bare Escentuals began thirty years ago to create a feather-light makeup as a solution to the heavy look and feel of traditional foundations. While beneficial for most women, the makeup line is especially designed for women with skin sensitivities, allergies, scars, blemishes, rosacea, wrinkles and pigmentation. Bare Escentuals CEO Leslie Blodgett uses real women with real skin problems to be the company's beauty spokesmodels.

Bare Escentuals Pink Passion Rose Radiance Collection will be available during National Breast Cancer Awareness Month from Sephora locations nationwide. To learn more about the makeup products offered and the special Pink Passion Rose Radiance Collection, visit Bare Escentuals.

Is smoking or not smoking a choice for everyone? While some cities are banning smoking in public places and some conscious efforts around the US are setting standards to stop smoking in the work place -- and restaurants are following a pattern to either end smoking in their establishments or to designate an area just for smokers -- it is still up to a lot of individuals to make choices where they will go in public to avoid cigarette smoke.

Twenty percent of lung cancers in women are from non-smokers who were exposed to second hand smoke. This statistic seems to be on the rise. But it is not just lung cancers that are affected by second hand smoke. Other types of cancers have been related to smoking or second hand smoke.

As adults we all have to make choices daily whether to go hang out with friends in a bar or night club that allows smoking, or to visit with a friend or family member in their house and they are a smoker. But what about the children? What choices do they have to stay away from parents, guardians, or baby sitters or other family members that are smokers? Children face a higher risk than adults of the negative effects of second hand smoke. Not only is a child's body still developing physically, but their breathing rate is faster than that of adults. Children breathing second hand smoke have many more illnesses like ear infections, bronchitis, allergies, and stunted growth.

So if you are trying to find some way to help you quit smoking, think about the health of your children or the children you are around. If you need another reason, remember that kids of a parent that smokes are more likely to start smoking themselves when they get older.  Do you want your kids to have an increased risk of lung cancer or heart attacks because they learned to smoke from you?

If you just can't quit, then make a conscious effort to smoke outside of the home and do not smoke in the car.  Also consider using smokeless ashtrays.  Cut down on the amount of exposure to second hand cigarette smoke for your child who does not have the choice.

The world was stunned to learn that Dana Reeve, a non-smoker, was diagnosed with lung cancer. Peter Jennings, who had quit smoking many years before his lung cancer death -- and who had only recently taken up the smoking habit again before being diagnosed with lung cancer -- was perhaps less confusing. Jennings publicly blamed smoking for his cancer. For many among us, spoken or unspoken, lung cancer has been thought to be a smoker's disease. With the loss of Dana Reeve, a non-smoker, new questions were asked, and conversation began, into all the causes of lung cancer. As a result of Dana Reeve's lung cancer death, non-smokers were asking out loud -- how much danger am I in for developing lung cancer. The every day person was soon to learn that not much is truly known about lung cancer, or clearly spelled out.

One of the most confounding truths about lung cancer and smoking, is that only 15 percent of smokers develop lung cancer, and almost 20 percent of lung cancer diagnosis involve non-smokers. University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center researchers are attempting to develop an assessment model to determine who is at greater risk for lung cancer. Here is some of the information they have come up with so far in the assessment model:

• Heavy smokers who have a previous history of emphysema exhibit nearly a four times increased risk of lung cancer than light smokers without emphysema.
• The risk of developing lung cancer increases to nearly 11-fold if a patient with the same medical history also has an inefficient DNA repair capacity.
• Individuals with a history of allergies have a 29 percent reduced risk of lung cancer.
• Such individuals, who also exhibit efficient DNA repair capacity, have a 56 percent reduced risk of developing lung cancer, compared with people who do not have allergies with poor DNA repair genes.
• Genetically, family members of lung cancer patients had more than a six-fold increased risk of developing lung cancer before the age of 50. Their risk of developing any type of cancer before age 50 was 44 percent higher.

Because there is such an increased focus on lung cancer now, this is just the beginning of information we can expect to learn in the near future to not only predict, but prevent by intervention, lung cancer for those who are at greater risk of developing the disease.

While most are celebrating the new blooms of Spring, my aunt is stocking up on antihistamines for another season of itchy eyes and sneezing. According to University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center researchers, that might not be a bad thing, as allergies and asthma seem to offer protection from the development of brain tumors.

"It appears that allergies and asthma rev up the immune system," said Michael Scheurer, the study's lead author and a postdoctoral fellow in M.D. Anderson's department of epidemiology. "They seem to produce enough inflammation in the brain to keep immune system cells active and working to prevent cancer from beginning to develop." Before I call my aunt to give her the good news though, researchers also said that antihistamine use might increase the chances of brain tumor development by taking away the protection offered by allergies. They are not absolutely sure of this fact -- no one is certain of the reasons leading to brain cancer.

The researchers are now looking to discover a gene susceptibility to developing brain tumors, and if they can find one, people who have the gene that indicates a higher risk of developing a brain tumor could be warned about using antihistamines. I am guessing even if my aunt had the faulty gene, she would still use antihistamines for allergy relief. Unless you are an allergy sufferer, or watch someone who is suffering the misery of allergies, you might not fully understand why someone would throw caution to the wind and take a calculated risk, if there is one. In the case of asthma, not being able to breath seems riskier than the vague possibility of a brain tumor.