Former televangelist Tammy Faye Messner -- formerly Tammy Faye Bakker -- posted Tuesday on her website (service is currently unavailable) a message about her health.

Messner, 65, reports that doctors have stopped treating her cancer -- she was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1996 and announced in 2004 the disease had spread to her lungs.

"I am down weight-wise to 65 pounds, and look like a scarecrow," the Charlotte resident shared on her site. "I need God's miracle to swallow. I look at young people and wish with all my heart for just one day of 'feeling great.'"

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.
  

Health care provider Dr. Anthony Vendryes wrote Monday in the Jamaica Gleaner that he is distressed at the growing number of young women developing cancer -- especially breast cancer. He believes women are not working very hard at preventing the disease. He thinks we are just waiting for the problem to surface and then treating it with "painful and often ineffective" efforts.

According to Vendryes, research indicates a woman's risk of developing breast cancer is under her own control. If we live a lifestyle that promotes cancer, we are apparently likely to get the disease. Such a lifestyle would include gaining more than 11 pounds after the age of 18, exercising less than one time per week, eating less than five servings of fruits and vegetables per day, eating more than three ounces of red meat per day, ingesting too much fat and salt, consuming more than one alcoholic drink per day, and smoking cigarettes.

I am all for healthy living. And I believe achieving good health is under our control. I would personally recommend every woman take charge of her life in a healthful manner. But I do not believe as Vendryes states, "most women actually give themselves cancer by making poor choices in life." I think it's the word most that bothers me.

Obviously, there is a connection between lifestyle choices and chronic disease. And of course our level of health is under our control -- to some extent. But I don't believe it's fair to claim most women ask for breast cancer. I know I didn't.

I did not choose cancer. It chose me. Vendryes might say I am one of the disillusioned people who think cancer is entirely a matter of chance or entirely a matter of genetics. Actually, I suspect it's a combination of all factors. All I know for sure, however, is that my own lifestyle choices were pretty darn healthy prior to my diagnosis.

My weight has always been in a normal range -- and while I did gain more than 11 pounds twice in my life, it was due both times to the more-than-ten-pound babies I delivered into the world. I have always eaten a fairly healthy diet. I consume sweets, salt, and fats in moderation. I have never smoked and have consumed alcohol only minimally. And I have always consistently exercised.

I admit I have eaten red meat, although never daily. And I'm sure I fall short on the recommended intake of fruits and vegetables. But really, I cannot even begin to imagine that my lifestyle was an invitation for cancer. And it makes me sad that most other young women, shocked by a diagnosis of breast cancer like me, might think they asked for such a horrible disease.

It's been two years since my breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent "painful and often ineffective" treatments. And although I have made some lifestyle changes -- I never drink alcohol now, I exercise a little more, and I don't choose to eat red meat if other options are available -- my life is much the same as it was prior to cancer. And I am certain that if cancer makes a return visit to my body, it will not be because I asked for it.

I received a comment today on my Sunday Seven post about how inspiring sentiments help me survive. The comment was from a women who is surviving lung cancer and she asked a question to all readers really -- when will the fear of recurrence ever go away? How do you out there deal with it? So I replied to her private e-mail address and shared my thoughts about fear and recurrence and how I deal with these issues as a cancer survivor. She replied and wrote, your e-mail was so uplifting. I think I just found you on a really bad day and I am thankful that I did. And so I realized that maybe I should not limit my thoughts to just one person when others are surely in her same boat -- my same boat. So here is what I wrote to this one reader who -- like so many others on my journey -- has helped me by allowing me the chance to help her.

Just want to say that I think you are already dealing with the fear-of-recurrence thing because you have been surviving for as long as you have been traveling this bumpy road. So while you survive, you just need to live each day like it's your last and fight for your life at the same time. Someone once told me to think of cancer as a chronic condition -- something we will live with for the rest of your lives. And we just keep treating it, wherever it pops up. And the longer we survive, the more resources there are to help us survive even longer. As for getting through each day, I recommend counseling (I go once per month but at one time I went each week). I also take an anti-depressant (Zoloft) which I do not push on anyone, but for me, it has helped. I went to my oncologist one day and asked him how to live peacefully without worrying constantly that cancer is coming back to haunt me -- he said many cancer patients take anti-depressants to take the edge off so I began the drug and began counseling too. Neither completely take away the fear -- but they help me manage and that's all I can ask for. I also have two little boys who keep me busy and distracted from feeling sorry for myself. And I try to keep busy in other ways too. Helping others with cancer -- or others who just need help -- is healthy too!

Helping others with cancer does help me. It reminds me that I am not alone and that others have fears like me and that collectively, we can all survive better if we lean on one another and borrow from one another and inspire one another.

Quick autopsies -- or rapid organ donation -- may steer scientists in the direction of better diagnosing and treating the most lethal of cancers. Some 33,700 Americans will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer this year -- and 32,300 will die. There is no early detection test for this disease and early symptoms are vague and may be mistaken for health concerns like indigestion. By the time the classic symptoms -- jaundice and itching -- surface, the cancer has typically spread and patients have only months to live. Rapid autopsies have been used before -- for Alzheimer's and prostate cancer -- but this a first in the study of pancreatic cancer and it just may lead to the discovery of what makes this cancer so aggressive and so deadly.