Luis Carranza is just eight years old. And he is just a few years -- or perhaps a few months -- away from dying as a result of a weakened immune system due to aggressive treatment for leukemia. The same treatment that at one time brought remission for this boy also attacked his central nervous system, caused seizures, brought on terminal and irreversible brain damage, and eventually sent him into a vegetative state. Luis has traveled a rough road -- and so has his mother who illegally slipped him across the Mexican border into the United States in hopes of treatment to save her young son's life.

Guadalupe Carranza did find salvation for her son in a Texas hospital and for more than one year, Luis received chemotherapy and radiation -- and loads of love from staff and volunteers who helped care for him. Guadalupe was not always there for her son, though, because after locating helpful health care and social services, she was deported to Mexico. She tried to return on many occasions and even received assistance from doctors, nurses, social workers, and attorneys who worked to find a legal way to unite Guadalupe and Luis. But not until Luis fell into a coma did efforts pay off.

After negotiation with border and consulate officials, Guadalupe was granted a humanitarian parole visa and legally crossed into the United States on May 8. The visa allowed her 60 days -- but officials agreed to let her stay until Luis passes away. And so she stays -- by her son's bedside where he rests peacefully in a place that gave him a chance at life. A chance his mother says he never would have had in Mexico.

It's a question that could face any one of us at any time -- the question over whether to pay the high cost of cancer treatment, when it could send us into debt, or to discontinue treatment in order to save money for the family members who will survive us. Dying of lung cancer, Carolyn Hobbs was confronted with this exact question when considering a new biotechnology drug -- Erbitux -- that she learned cost $1,800. The drug may have extended her life but she determined it wasn't worth it -- and she refused the treatment.

During the last decade, expensive new treatments -- some upwards of $50,000 -- have given some patients their first real fighting chance against disease. The problem with these treatments, however, is that most patients will only survive an extra few months. A lucky few may survive for years. For some, maybe the small fortune these few months or years cost is worth it. For others, squandering their life savings on an extended death sentence is not worth it.

For me -- right now -- I believe I would do anything possible to ensure a longer life. And according to one poll, nearly one-third of Americans faced with death would also do anything possible to survive just a bit longer. This percentage is up from one-fifth in 1990. So I have some company in my corner. But I have not walked in the shoes that require this type of decision. I can only speculate about how I might approach this life-and-death decision. And hopefully, I will never have to make it.

I never thought the time would come when I could fill a page with names of people I know who have cancer or have died from cancer. When my mom's very best friend died years and years ago of pancreatic cancer, it seemed a remote chance that something like that would happen to someone I know. And then slowly, either because cancer cases increased or because my awareness increased -- or both -- my list of people with cancer grew and grew and grew. And now it's quite long. And it's quite disturbing. And it's empowering too -- because most people on my growing list are surviving. And here are seven survivors who are somehow connected to me -- seven survivors who make up just the tip of the cancer iceberg in my life that stretches far and wide.

After my breast cancer diagnosis, I received endless offers from friends and family who offered to help me. I was offered meals, babysitting, errands, escorts to appointments, and two faraway friends even told me they would hop on a plane in an instant to come stay with me. I accepted a tiny bit of help -- like a meal here and there and a morning of babysitting -- but I really did not want much assistance. Mostly because I am do-it-myself type of person and however unhealthy this can be -- especially in the midst of a health crisis -- I wanted my life to remain as normal as possible. And if that meant taking care of my kids, despite nausea and fatigue, I wanted to do it. I wanted to be the one in the driver's seat on my way to treatments and procedures. And I wanted to run my own errands. Part of me believed that accepting help meant I was really sick. And I couldn't admit that. Yet it was true. I was sick. I needed help.

And I need help now too -- while I am healthy and strong and able to do everything for myself. And maybe that's why I am able to ask for it -- because it doesn't require my confession that something in my life is not alright. And actually, asking for this type of help helps me express that I am really okay, that I am able to use my health to help others.

Screenings for colorectal cancer offer more than a chance for early treatment -- they offer the chance to avoid cancer completely. The disease usually starts with growths called polyps that can take a decade to turn cancerous. If polyps are found and removed, cancer can be avoided altogether. Yet many are avoiding the screening. And polyps that go undetected can turn to a cancer that can lurk silently in anyone -- especially during middle age and beyond. And black Americans are especially at risk.

Almost 42 million Americans over the age of 50 are not getting checked for colorectal cancer -- the nation's No. 2 cancer killer. Perhaps it's the financial burden that comes with the life-saving procedure. Now in five states, a government-funded program is offering free testing for the poor. But still, many will fall through the cracks in many states. And while Medicare pays for screenings, this federal program is for people 65 and older -- a long wait for someone at age 50 who needs the test but does not have insurance.

Perhaps it's the part of the body under study that steers people away. Perhaps it's the manner in which the test is performed -- a long, flexible tube is used to visually inspect the colon -- that turns heads in the wrong direction. While the financial burden is a valid deterrent, other worries or fears should be put to rest. The test is not all that bad, says one doctor who had a colonoscopy himself. The worst part of the whole experience may be the liquid mixture that is consumed prior to the test that cleans out the system -- minor discomfort really in the scope of the alternative. Cancer.

Colonocopies are recommended just once every 10 years. And nearly 60 percent of deaths from colorectal cancer can be prevented if each person over the age of 50 finds some way to make this screening happen. And if not this screening, there are other options -- like a fecal test that is done annually but is more more affordable and can be quite effective too. So consider your options. And make a choice.

Double the hormone, double the risk. Or so says one study of older women who take hormone pills. When estrogen and testosterone are combined, women face twice the chance of getting breast cancer, according to a study of more than 70,000 nurses. This type of combination therapy may help with mood, libido, and bone density -- but the possible risk of breast cancer may just outweigh these benefits. These findings, published in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine, add to the evidence that certain types of hormone supplements -- like estrogen-progestin pills -- increase risk of breast cancer, strokes, and heart attacks in women. Other research points to a link between breast cancer and high natural levels of testosterone.

Women's natural levels of estrogen and testosterone decrease with menopause. Use of supplements has climbed over the past 24 years, perhaps putting more women at more risk. Estrogen-testosterone pills are sold under the brand names Estratest and Estratest H.S. and appear on a Washington-based advocacy group's "Worst Pills" list because of breast cancer risk.

The topic of weight gets a lot of press -- especially as it relates to cancer. And there is no arguing that the general consensus by all doctors and nutritionists and experts is that obesity and weight gain are key risk factors in the whole game of cancer. And now there are even more statistics to support this belief.

According to a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a weight gain of 22 pounds increased a woman's risk of breast cancer by 18 percent. Women who lost the same amount of weight, however, lowered their risk by 57 percent. The study followed 87,000 women between the ages of 30 and 55 for 26 years. Researchers noted how their weight fluctuated after the age of 18 and from menopause and beyond. The study did not count weight gain during pregnancy. Losing weight -- at all ages -- largely decreased the chance of breast cancer.

There seems to be no mystery when it comes to weight and health. Higher levels of weight translate into higher levels of risk for all sorts of health problems. And the same goes for breast cancer -- the more excess weight, the more risk.

Australian singer Kylie Minogue said in a recent interview that she and her family fell to pieces upon hearing her diagnosis of breast cancer this past May. Since that time, she has had surgery and chemotherapy and she currently receives treatment to prevent a recurrence of the disease. And she is now picking up the pieces of her life and is rebounding from the once disbelief that her life would take a detour. Last week, she attended her first public appearance since her illness -- at Elton John's White Tie and Tiara ball -- and she is renaming her Showgirl tour, which was canceled after her cancer battle began. Now the Showgirl Homecoming Tour, Minogue is set to return to performing. Her concert promoter says she will take it slow -- to accommodate her off and on again fatigue -- but she will return with the vigor she is known for. Minogue says she feels like she has a new chance at life now. And she will talk all about it on July 16 when her interview is aired on Britain's Sky News.

I clearly remember reading a pamphlet about a test that might determine with pretty good accuracy whether or not I would benefit from chemotherapy for breast cancer. This was more than a year ago and I hoped, prayed, wished upon a star that I would be a candidate for this test -- and that the result would reveal that I did not need the toxic chemotherapy that I feared with every fiber of my being. But I did not qualify for this test because it's only effective for tumors that are estrogen receptor positive -- and I am negative. So I received chemotherapy and while I've survived it, there still remains an important issue -- did I need it?