View Full Version : Partner coughed up blood
My partner is a smoker and has smoked for 10 years, he's 26 now. He is a heavy smoker 15-20 a day but smoked more than that in his teen years :ohmy:
He has always had a lot of phlegm on his chest and is constantly coughing it up, he doesn't have an actual cough, just the need to cough up phlegm. He told me that he noticed the phlegm has recently turned a brown colour and on Monday it has blood in it, this has happened another time since then.
He's the type of person who never goes to the doctor's, but he is doing now, however he said his appointment is next Friday because that's the only 'late' appointment they had free.
I want him to go as soon as he can, as he is wheezy sometimes and last time he had his lungs checked they said there was a slight 'catch'.
I would like him to call up in the morning to try and get a same day appointment,
Obviously i am thinking the worst. He has tried to stop smoking(cold turkey) and failed, tried again and failed, now he is going to get help from NHS and use patches or whatever is best.
Does this sound sinister?
Worried
netminder1976
11-05-16, 18:34
I would imagine it is coming from his sinuses and not actually his lungs. Always best to cut out the smoking though.
Lifelonganxiety!
11-05-16, 18:34
Coughing up blood in and of itself isn't always sinister. I've done it a couple of times. It can come from an irritated throat (coughing too much) or more likely from swallowing or inhaling blood from the gums or sinuses.
Getting it checked is absolutely the right thing to do in this case, but at age 26 it would be very rare for this to be anything too sinister so try not to worry too much.
unsure_about_this
11-05-16, 18:41
Agree with others best to go to the doctors to see what the problem is
countrygirl
11-05-16, 20:43
At his age the chances of lung cancer are minute. Its much more likely that its due to possibly infection , his gp should send him for an x ray which would show up any infection or anything else that could cause it. If thats clear then it could be as has been said from somewhere else travelling down to throat.
MyNameIsTerry
11-05-16, 22:55
Constant coughing alone with cause minor blood vessels to rupture or irritation. It could easily just be that. People with colds can cough up blood due to constant coughing.
Don't jump to any conclusions just because he smokes.
At his age the chances of lung cancer are minute. Its much more likely that its due to possibly infection , his gp should send him for an x ray which would show up any infection or anything else that could cause it. If thats clear then it could be as has been said from somewhere else travelling down to throat.
I'm afraid lung cancer doesn't discriminate by age.
Some get it early and others don't.
My wife has just had it and it was removed by surgery but you gotta catch it in the early stages.
Get him to the doc ASAP just in case.
MyNameIsTerry
12-05-16, 05:07
The slight "catch" is a bit of an unknown variable. Does it imply a problem or perhaps indicates another condition which would rule out Katie's current worry?
He's going to the doctor's Monday to get checked, hopefully it will be all fine and we can get this smoking stopped! Going to struggle not to worry the entire time though :unsure:
I'm afraid lung cancer doesn't discriminate by age.
Sorry, but that is total nonsense. Lung cancer very rarely affects people under the age of 40. Of course, there are very very VERY rare exceptions to that rule, but to tell someone that doesn't descriminate with age is simply not true. Your risk of developing lung cancer under the age of 40 is so small that I personally think the OP should stop thinking about it altogether.
By all means get checked, by all means quit smoking, but that type of comment is scaremongering in the extreme.
Sorry, but that is total nonsense. Lung cancer very rarely affects people under the age of 40. Of course, there are very very VERY rare exceptions to that rule, but to tell someone that doesn't descriminate with age is simply not true. Your risk of developing lung cancer under the age of 40 is so small that I personally think the OP should stop thinking about it altogether.
By all means get checked, by all means quit smoking, but that type of comment is scaremongering in the extreme.
Yeah i checked the figures after that and was pretty much non existent, which is good but obviously i know it can and has happened before, but good to see how rare it is in this age group.
Sorry, but that is total nonsense. Lung cancer very rarely affects people under the age of 40. Of course, there are very very VERY rare exceptions to that rule, but to tell someone that doesn't descriminate with age is simply not true. Your risk of developing lung cancer under the age of 40 is so small that I personally think the OP should stop thinking about it altogether.
By all means get checked, by all means quit smoking, but that type of comment is scaremongering in the extreme.
Agreed... less than 2% under 45. Average age is 60's+
Positive thoughts
Sorry, but that is total nonsense. Lung cancer very rarely affects people under the age of 40. Of course, there are very very VERY rare exceptions to that rule, but to tell someone that doesn't descriminate with age is simply not true. Your risk of developing lung cancer under the age of 40 is so small that I personally think the OP should stop thinking about it altogether.
By all means get checked, by all means quit smoking, but that type of comment is scaremongering in the extreme.
Yes incidence is lower at younger ages but it still occurs.
My wife who has never smoked had 2/3 of her lung removed.
She had no symptoms whatsoever but was lucky enough to have it picked up in a routine Xray and here you are telling someone not to bother because it's "unlikely".
Better to be safe than sorry.
Yes incidence is lower at younger ages but it still occurs.
My wife who has never smoked had 2/3 of her lung removed.
She had no symptoms whatsoever but was lucky enough to have it picked up in a routine Xray and here you are telling someone not to bother because it's "unlikely".
Better to be safe than sorry.
Can you point out to me where I said "not to bother"? In fact, I said the words "by all means get checked out", did I not? You even quoted me on it for goodness sake. The fact of the matter is that while lung cancer can happen in people younger than 40, the incidence of it is so extremely rare that the OP, in my opinion, shouldn't worry herself so much about it.
You made a statement which is completely untrue, you said that "lung cancer doesn't discriminate with age", but it clearly does. I understand that your wife fell into the bracket of one of these rare cases, although you still haven't mentioned what age she is, and I offer my sincere condolences on that and truly do wish her a full and speedy recovery, but it does not change the fact that lung cancer is almost unheard of in people under 40.
I have no wish to undermine your wife's condition or the pain and suffering it has caused you both, but at the same time I also have no wish to further increase anxiety in an already anxious person by totally overstating risk factors and making her believe that her partner has the same risk of lung cancer as a much older person.
You now appear to be trying to put words in my mouth and for some reason attempting to make out that I'm telling her not to bother getting her partner checked out, when I quite clearly said the exact opposite. I have no idea why you're doing this, but I would kindly ask you to refrain from it and simply acknowledge that you made an incorrect and potentially scaremongering statement.
You have a smoker with classic symptoms of a life threatening disease and you said:
"Your risk of developing lung cancer under the age of 40 is so small that I personally think the OP should stop thinking about it altogether"
which is a direct copy/paste of your words.
I regard YOUR post as totally irresponsible.
You have a smoker with classic symptoms of a life threatening disease and you said:
"Your risk of developing lung cancer under the age of 40 is so small that I personally think the OP should stop thinking about it altogether"
which is a direct copy/paste of your words.
I regard YOUR post as totally irresponsible.
I've not checked for a list of symptoms of lung cancer, obviously i know blood in the phlegm can't be a good sign but is it a common sign? It's not happening all the time in fact only a few, would there be more symptoms along with it?
Yes it is a common symptom especially first thing in the morning.
I'm not saying that it is cancer and you may be worried about nothing but it's definitely worth having it checked out.
You have a smoker with classic symptoms of a life threatening disease and you said:
"Your risk of developing lung cancer under the age of 40 is so small that I personally think the OP should stop thinking about it altogether"
which is a direct copy/paste of your words.
I regard YOUR post as totally irresponsible.
This is ridiculous. You're being so blatantly selective that it's actually becoming quite embarrassing. Why haven't you "directly copy/pasted" the part where I told the OP "by all means have it checked out"? Is it because that would make your accusation aimed at me utterly nonsensical?
You even said yourself in your first reply to me;
"Yes incidence is lower at younger ages but it still occurs."
So you are saying, in fact, that lung cancer DOES discriminate with age, yes? You have now blatantly admitted you made a false statement but for some reason you're continuing to attempt to point fault in my direction, accuse of me of saying things I simply didn't, and STILL insist that the OP should be thinking about this possibly being lung cancer.
You really need to have a word with yourself.
This is ridiculous. You're being so blatantly selective that it's actually becoming quite embarrassing. Why haven't you "directly copy/pasted" the part where I told the OP "by all means have it checked out"? Is it because that would make your accusation aimed at me utterly nonsensical?
You even said yourself in your first reply to me;
"Yes incidence is lower at younger ages but it still occurs."
So you are saying, in fact, that lung cancer DOES discriminate with age, yes? You have now blatantly admitted you made a false statement but for some reason you're continuing to attempt to point fault in my direction, accuse of me of saying things I simply didn't, and STILL insist that the OP should be thinking about this possibly being lung cancer.
You really need to have a word with yourself.
No I'm not saying that it discriminates at all - quite the opposite.
I'm trying to advise someone about a potential health condition and you don't seem to be taking it seriously just because YOU think they don't fit the right age bracket as you see it.
Why you're arguing I have no idea.
I quote again "Your risk of developing lung cancer under the age of 40 is so small that I personally think the OP should stop thinking about it altogether"
No I'm not saying that it discriminates at all - quite the opposite.
I'm trying to advise someone about a potential health condition and you don't seem to be taking it seriously just because YOU think they don't fit the right age bracket as you see it.
Why you're arguing I have no idea.
I quote again "Your risk of developing lung cancer under the age of 40 is so small that I personally think the OP should stop thinking about it altogether"
It's not me who is saying the person doesn't fit the right age bracket, medical science and proven statistics say so, I'm going off of that. Fishmanpa has posted above that the incidence of lung cancer in people under 45 is 2% of all diagnosed cases. That is ridiculously low, and there is simply no disputing that.
I'm simply telling the OP that while she should get her partner checked out, the odds of it actually being lung cancer, given the numbers I mentioned, are so slight that she should not be worrying about it. I feel I've been more than clear on this point, but you still keep kicking at goalposts that only you put up.
I'm arguing because you are putting words in my mouth and ignoring medical facts and statistics. It really is that simple, and the fact you continue to ignore what I've actually written shows that you're more interested in being right than you are of stating facts.
MyNameIsTerry
13-05-16, 09:28
The slight "catch" is a bit of an unknown variable. Does it imply a problem or perhaps indicates another condition which would rule out Katie's current worry?
But what is the slight "catch"?
Smokers cough mucus. My dad did for years and especially in the mornings.
Brownish mucus will be it mixing with blood from somewhere. People with colds see that at times.
Since he has been coughing mucus for quite a while as you said in your first post, it doesn't fit as a symptom for me because lung cancer normally shows symptoms in stage 3 or 4 and it's an aggressive form of cancer. He would get very ill as time passed.
My GF's mum presented with symptoms of problems with her lungs and her GP referred her to hospital to be checked further whereby she was admitted. A month or so later she could only climb a flight of stairs once a day. She was stage 4. She never smoked in her life but was diagnosed with the smokers version which is very uncommon.
When someone says "cancer doesn't discriminate" I take it to mean that it doesn't pick or choose because it is not a conscious being with the ability to do so. Whilst it becomes a risk more at certain ages, that doesn't imply conscious intelligence. Maybe others just interpret that in a different way?
So you're sure he's not one of the 2%?
If I had your ability to diagnose over the net I wouldn't be wasting my time on a free forum.
Now run away and annoy someone else - I'm over you.
ok guys enough.
You have both expressed different points of view very eloquently.
Let's leave it to the OP and her partner to decide where to go from here.
Feel free to continue to contribute to the thread but please agree to disagree.
Thanks in advance
Elen
So you're sure he's not one of the 2%?
If I had your ability to diagnose over the net I wouldn't be wasting my time on a free forum.
Now run away and annoy someone else - I'm over you.
I'm sorry that facts "annoy" you, I really am. You said that lung cancer doesn't discriminate with age. 2% of people under 45 get it, meaning 98% over 45 get it. If that doesn't convince you that age is indeed a factor, then nothing will. I haven't once said I'm sure he's not one of the 2%, all I have said is that with odds like that, it's not something that should be working the OP into a panic.
The point of this forum is to try and stop people overstating risks and convincing themselves that they or a partner are seriously ill when all available evidence and risk factors say they most probably aren't. Why that bothers you I have no idea.
---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------
ok guys enough.
You have both expressed different points of view very eloquently.
Let's leave it to the OP and her partner to decide where to go from here.
Feel free to continue to contribute to the thread but please agree to disagree.
Thanks in advance
Elen
Will do.
ok guys enough.
You have both expressed different points of view very eloquently.
Let's leave it to the OP and her partner to decide where to go from here.
Feel free to continue to contribute to the thread but please agree to disagree.
Thanks in advance
Elen
No worries
I had no intention of continuing as you would have seen in my last post
Thank you gentlemen, much appreciated.
You know, reading back over this, I can see that I may have picked you up wrong. When you say it doesn't discriminate with age, I took that as you saying that the odds of getting it at say, 28, are the same as getting it at a much older age. Now that I read it, what I think you're saying is that people of any age CAN get it, but not necessarily with the same risk as an older person.
If this is the case then allow me to offer you an apology, I sometimes jump on things a bit too quickly and I fear I may have done exactly that in this instance.
You know, reading back over this, I can see that I may have picked you up wrong. When you say it doesn't discriminate with age, I took that as you saying that the odds of getting it at say, 28, are the same as getting it at a much older age. Now that I read it, what I think you're saying is that people of any age CAN get it, but not necessarily with the same risk as an older person.
If this is the case then allow me to offer you an apology, I sometimes jump on things a bit too quickly and I fear I may have done exactly that in this instance.
Thankyou
That is what I meant but may not have expressed it clearly.
MyNameIsTerry
13-05-16, 10:35
http://yoursmiles.org/tsmile/hug/t4624.gif (http://yoursmiles.org/t-hug.php)
But what is the slight "catch"?
Smokers cough mucus. My dad did for years and especially in the mornings.
Brownish mucus will be it mixing with blood from somewhere. People with colds see that at times.
Since he has been coughing mucus for quite a while as you said in your first post, it doesn't fit as a symptom for me because lung cancer normally shows symptoms in stage 3 or 4 and it's an aggressive form of cancer. He would get very ill as time passed.
My GF's mum presented with symptoms of problems with her lungs and her GP referred her to hospital to be checked further whereby she was admitted. A month or so later she could only climb a flight of stairs once a day. She was stage 4. She never smoked in her life but was diagnosed with the smokers version which is very uncommon.
When someone says "cancer doesn't discriminate" I take it to mean that it doesn't pick or choose because it is not a conscious being with the ability to do so. Whilst it becomes a risk more at certain ages, that doesn't imply conscious intelligence. Maybe others just interpret that in a different way?
I know it sounds strange but my wife's oncologist said it's more aggressive in women than men.
Apparently men have hard ball like tumors and in women it's like fairy floss and travels faster.
He didn't know why and neither do I.
I had a friend many years ago who had given up smoking at 50 and began coughing up blood at 70.
He had 1/3 of his right lung removed and lived to 91.
I guess some people are just luckier than others.
MyNameIsTerry
13-05-16, 11:03
I know it sounds strange but my wife's oncologist said it's more aggressive in women than men.
Apparently men have hard ball like tumors and in women it's like fairy floss and travels faster.
He didn't know why and neither do I.
I had a friend many years ago who had given up smoking at 50 and began coughing up blood at 70.
He had 1/3 of his right lung removed and lived to 91.
I guess some people are just luckier than others.
Yes, definitely and I'm glad your wife was one of the luckier ones, Phill.
I didn't know that about the tumors. I guess the structure must pay a part in how easy it breaks away because isn't that how it gets around the lymph nodes as very small bits of tissue?
I know with my GF's mum they found hard polyps in lungs at first. The biopsy inconclusive but a PET scan revealed cancer. Sadly it had metastasised into both lungs so its inoperable but she responded well to the first round of chemo and just before her fourth they did a scan which showed it was shrinking so she is looking to be one of the luckier ones too, even if still terminal.
My wife's looked like spider web on the Xray.
They did a PET scan to make sure it wasn't anywhere else before they operated
She has to have Xrays every 3 months and a CT scan every 12 months for 5 yrs
She just had her first yearly one and all is good.
Let's hope your GFs mum has a bit more quality time.
MyNameIsTerry
13-05-16, 11:39
Thanks Phill. She has always been an active person which is something on her side.
It's great to hear your wife has had an all clear at the follow up. I bet those are going to be stressful times for you both?
Thanks Phill. She has always been an active person which is something on her side.
It's great to hear your wife has had an all clear at the follow up. I bet those are going to be stressful times for you both?
She gets stressed whenever the date gets close.
Can't say I blame her
Terry - I don't know what they meant by the slight catch after listening to his lungs, but that was long ago and they didn't seem overly concerned.
He doesn't have a bad cough, it is literally the odd cough when he feels the phlegm on his chest but not a constant cough.
My mum has always been a heavy smoker and i hear her coughing it makes me cringe, she has chronic bronchitis.
It worries me with my partner, i want to be able to use the time i spend worrying about having terminal illnesses on actually just getting ourselves healthier in general.
We are only young and don't drink unless special occasions, we have a good healthy diet and this smoking is really the devil. :mad:
How ironic i worry and fear so much for my health but i do the one thing that is killing me :weep: i hear stories of people who just stopped and never looked back and i just cannot fathom how it's done, it's a huge part of my life as in nearly all daily activities revolve around it, so not just the chemical addiction but the habit is going to be unbelievably hard to break.
Terry - I don't know what they meant by the slight catch after listening to his lungs, but that was long ago and they didn't seem overly concerned.
He doesn't have a bad cough, it is literally the odd cough when he feels the phlegm on his chest but not a constant cough.
My mum has always been a heavy smoker and i hear her coughing it makes me cringe, she has chronic bronchitis.
It worries me with my partner, i want to be able to use the time i spend worrying about having terminal illnesses on actually just getting ourselves healthier in general.
We are only young and don't drink unless special occasions, we have a good healthy diet and this smoking is really the devil. :mad:
How ironic i worry and fear so much for my health but i do the one thing that is killing me :weep: i hear stories of people who just stopped and never looked back and i just cannot fathom how it's done, it's a huge part of my life as in nearly all daily activities revolve around it, so not just the chemical addiction but the habit is going to be unbelievably hard to break.
I was a 50 a day smoker until I had a heart attack last year.
I had tried many times to give up using patches etc with no success.
After the heart attack I stopped immediately using these http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/like/191812092282?limghlpsr=true&hlpv=2&ops=true&viphx=1&hlpht=true&lpid=107&chn=ps
They're good because they give you something to do with your hands.
The heart attack was my wake up call.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.