The relation of cancer to life assurance : a paper read at the Life Assurance Medical Officers' Association, May 5th, 1897, with a discussion / by Joseph Frank Payne.

  • Payne, Joseph Frank, 1840-1910.
Date:
[1897]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The relation of cancer to life assurance : a paper read at the Life Assurance Medical Officers' Association, May 5th, 1897, with a discussion / by Joseph Frank Payne. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    31/36 (page 29)
    Cancer, I was greatly surprised, because one’s own experience, certainly my own experience, would be that if a man lives up to say 68 or 70, that is so far rather an argument against his dying of Cancer. That is the conclusion I have often adopted in practical work, and I was surprised to find that conclusion was entirely upset by these statistics, but I think Dr. Payne’s further explanation rather helps one to preserve one’s opinion in reference to that matter. Dr. Payne : Would you mind telling us, sir, what the practice in your office is, as regards accepting lives with a history of Cancer ? The President : I could not state any statistics, but my feeling is very much that one member of a family dying of Cancer would not influence the rating-up, but that two members of the family would make some addition. But I may have misunderstood Dr. Pollock. I thought he said that he would either rate-up very heavily or reject an applicant who had two members, that is to say, a father and a brother, or a mother and a brother, in the family dying of Cancer. Was that so ? Dr. Pollock : I did say so, sir, if both parents had had it, which is a very rare event in Cancer, I should decline the life altogether. Dr. Payne in reply said: I am very much obliged to the members of the Society for the remarks they have made. Dr. Poore j made some very interesting observations about the probable cause of increase of Cancer. I did not enter into the question of cause, but only into the question of facts—whether the alleged increase of Cancer really exists. Very probably Dr. Poore’s explanation is the right one; but I must say it is not approved of by Dr. William Ogle. He thinks that the saving of life from tubercular diseases is not enough to account for the increase of Cancer. I do not ■pretend for a moment to decide the point. Some other interesting