Run For The Ribbons

"More than 40 years after the war on cancer was declared, we have spent billions fighting the good fight. The National Cancer Institute has spent some $90 billion on research and treatment during that time. Some 260 nonprofit organizations in the United States have dedicated themselves to cancer — more than the number established for heart disease, AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, and stroke combined. Together, these 260 organizations have budgets that top $2.2 billion."

Dr. Margaret Cuomo,  A World Without Cancer.

One of the stipulations I place on my blog writing is that, to keep the spirit of the Fence, I write strictly for opinion, rarely straying into deep research.  Of course, to have an opinion, it is important to know something about what you’re discussing, but I have tried to keep my little essays as observations, as though I were just standing on the street corner watching life happen.  I am not a doctor.  I have very little knowledge of how cancer is caused, spreads, and claims its victims.  I know about as much about how fundraising works; like most people, I have taken part in it, but have no real idea where the money I collected is allocated.  Like everyone, I have lost loved ones to cancer, and surely will again.  Morbid as it may seem, I expect cancer will be my final adversary in this life, eventually.

I saw a link on my Facebook page to a video from a fellow who claims he is a cancer survivor, denouncing well-known, prolific cancer charities, most notably ‘Run For The Cure’.  His name is Chris Wark, and the article is called “Why I Don’t Run For The Cure”.  That was a very gutsy claim to make on a public forum.  To say something like that, you had better have your research well-articulated, because there are few subjects that strike close to the heart like cancer.  It helps that he is a cancer survivor.  Otherwise, it would be like me trying to write about life on the street in New York.  There would be zero authenticity.

Without delving into his personal history, I have had to take his word that his personal story is accurate.  At no time in history has integrity ever been so dubious.  Anyone can write anything, and with little regard for factuality, it can be approved as truth.  Especially if it is attached to a high emotional response.  Facebook constantly sends around shocking stories, most of which are proven to be false.  ‘Snopes’ is a great website for debunking urban myths, but even there, you have to wonder if someone is just making up the answers.  Where can an honest fellow go for truth these days?

Mr. Wark’s argument is not against supporting cancer research.  The title of his video leaves you to think that, without actually watching it of course, he doesn’t care about cancer.  This is a tactic that is as old as journalism.  Leave the title a little vague, and you immediately snare the reader based on emotional response.  Huffington Post takes this to the extreme, often posting articles that veer far from the tag-line.  It doesn’t mean the articles themselves are poor, but like all advertising, it’s meant to draw you to the flame before it singes your eyebrows.

In this short clip, he suggests that cancer research funding has amounted to virtually no progress in the fight against cancer.  It still happens, and with the exception of some cancers like leukemia, it is still a guaranteed killer eventually.  With tens of billions, if not more, pouring from the pockets of millions of well-intentioned people worldwide, how is it that cancer is no closer to being a memory than it was when Terry Fox first took up the mantle as the world’s most famous advocate for cancer research?  How would he feel today if he were to peek in on all the work being done in his name?  Would he be pleased to see the human spirit working for the greater good, regardless of the outcome?  Or would he be dismayed at how many people make a living off false hope?

At the end of his video, there are some suggested websites which he has endorsed as being honest.  That’s a pretty strong indictment of all the rest, so it’s best to take a moment to explain why some charities are better than others.  Any organization that is so visible that it employs a huge staff, has a massive corporate identity, and that has its tendrils in every corner of civilization should immediately be suspect.  This  principle goes beyond cancer research.  If that organization can’t provide transparency as to how it allocates its funds, it is not a charity, but a business.  The company that makes Q-Ray bracelets tells you that if you wear their product, you’ll feel better.  You pay them, you get a bracelet, and you may or may not feel better.  If you do, you feel happier, and your money was well-spent.  If you don’t, you got suckered by a false product by a greedy business.  Q-Ray can’t prove their product works.  Sadly, I’m cynical enough to believe this applies to most drugs we’re given.

Let’s look at the sheer cost of research.  All research is costly.  It is like training Olympic athletes; if you want them to have a fighting chance, they have to train professionally, so you need to fund their workout facilities, cost of living, and compensate them for lost wages.  Scientists’ integrity isn’t the issue here.  They are highly trained, and because they are experts, know everything they need to know in their field of study.  If we want them to dedicate their lives to finding cures for diseases, they also have to be funded like our athlete friends above.  Billions seems a bit excessive, though.  How many scientists are employed for this purpose?  Who employs them?  If a scientist from the United States and a scientist from Iran are working on the exact same thing, are they sharing their data?  You already know the answer to that one.  In fact, are they sharing among themselves domestically?  There’s only one Nobel Prize for medicine.

I’d like to think that my dollars are being spent on the real thing.  My five dollar contribution last week may as well have been spent printing banners for a relay, or to fund the visit of a guest speaker.  Did the speaker stay in a fancy hotel on my dime?  Does the government reimburse organizations for things like this?  If so, have I inadvertently donated more than once, just for paying my taxes?  I don’t have the answers for these musings, but I think it’s important to think about it before we give someone freely our hard-earned money.  I have some suggestions as to how you can spend your money, and guarantee a more certain outcome:

Ø  Quit smoking.  The doctor at the start of this blog post stated in her book that lung cancer, while no closer to being cured, can be reduced by 85% simply by eliminating tobacco smoke intake.  Not only will you be less likely to get lung cancer, you’ll be less of a drag (pun intended) on the health-care system.

Ø  Quite eating junk food.  While eating healthy is a money racket itself, relying on deep-fried foods, or those crammed with preservatives and are high in sodium are proven to be linked to higher rates of cancer.  While I’m not convinced sodium is as evil as they claim it to be, you can do yourself a favour, and everyone else, by eating better.

Ø  Support your local children’s hospital.  Here in the Maritimes, we have the IWK in Halifax.  There are many ways you can support them.  Make your donation directly; by-pass Wal-Mart or Toys ‘R Us, because they are in it for profit.  The government matches your contribution, and I have seen no evidence that that rebate is funneled back to the charity. 

Ø  Support nursing homes.  Give them resources, such as comfortable chairs, exercise equipment, magazines, books, TVs, radios, and other things that will make someone’s quality of life in those twilight years more comfortable.

Ø  While we’re at it, support hospitals with the same things.  Have good games and toys available for children who have to live with such an awful affliction.  And if you can, get in to volunteer once in a while.  My youngest son loved when the volunteers spent a few hours playing games with him.  It made all the difference in the world, and cost nothing.

Ø  Don’t forget that other, equally series diseases exist.  I know that cancer is maybe the most prevalent, but it is no less of a concern for the person with MS, or lupus, or Parkinson’s, or AIDS, or any other illness for which we don’t have the solution.  I’d like to mention that mental illness may be the most pervasive category of misunderstood medical concerns.  Someone once suggested to me that cancer is a ‘trendy’ disease.  Discuss that statement amongst yourselves, but I’m not touching that one today.

I want to end by making it clear that supporting cancer research is a very noble cause, regardless of how you make your contribution.  People find solace in the support they receive from friends and strangers alike at public events and rallies, and I don’t want to take away from that community spirit you get from big-name events.  Don’t let yourself be duped into thinking that what you do makes a difference, though, or at least the difference you think you are making.  You can wear pink ribbons everyday if you like, but you are not getting any closer to a cure.  You certainly can make a difference, however, by directly helping people who are living with this disease right now.  We are so smug as a species that we think we will actually cheat death.  Eventually, we figure we can cure all illnesses, and that one day we will live forever.  The planet has news for us, I’m afraid.  The Earth may well see us as the cancer, and is fighting back as fervently as we are against it.  I suggest that we re-examine our residency in this world; we should strive to make life for ourselves comfortable and dignified, but we must remind ourselves that our time here is temporary, and that the human spirit is not about extending life indefinitely, but in providing dignity and the very best of humanity for all--cancer and otherwise.  Which carries more value:  the billion-dollar ruse, or the board games you donated to the local hospital?

*

I would like to dedicate this essay to the memory of two people.  First, to my great-aunt Marjorie.  She passed away in the mid-80s after a long, slow, and excruciating battle with cancer.  I was only ten years old, but seeing her in the hospital that last time left a big impression on me.  She was a wonderful lady with a wonderful spirit.  Second, to Tracy Spence.  She was a school-mate, who lost her battle with leukemia in 1989, if memory serves.  All these years later, I remember less and less about her, which sadly is the reality of growing older.  She deserved to grow older.  One of the greatest moments of my high school years was seeing a memorial to her in our yearbook.  Two very different people, felled by the same disease.