Correcting Every Little Language Lapse

My previous post griped about a local annual spring run/walk for breast cancer fundraising. There was another fundraiser going on that weekend I noticed but just couldn’t focus on until it was over. It was called Arts & Crabs Against Cancer—get it? Like arts & crafts but I’m at the Delmarva beaches so crabs are a big thing.

I wonder if the creators of the event realized the crab/cancer connection. I used a Maryland tote bag with crab decoration to carry my cancer notebook to each infusion and doctor visit—I still do. It gave me a grim chuckle to know that my home state’s claim to fame (crabs/Maryland crab cakes) was also the sign of cancer. I wonder if they know the crab connection for how and why cancer came to be called cancer. (So glad the filmmakers put that little tidbit right in the beginning of the PBS film.)

I could find very little about the event other than date, location, planned activities, and a vague mention that proceeds would benefit cancer research. There was no website, just a Facebook page. After the event was over, on Monday or Tuesday I saw a thank you post on their page, with the note that the money raised would go to “12 fantastic cancer-battling causes”.

It is often noted in cancer blogs that words have meaning, be careful with them. So the “12 fantastic cancer-battling causes” is disconcerting. I think they mean organizations, not causes—isn’t the actual cause “battling cancer”? But even worse—which 12? How do I know they are reputable? Is Komen, with their lack of financial support for metastatic breast cancer, one of them? I’m pretty hell bent on NOT giving them money.

I did not go and contribute money, and even if I knew the designated organizations, contributing money is not in my budget these days. So should I speak and make a fuss? Should I point out that this is another classic example of “just say your fun event is for a good cause and people will come and think well of your business”?

I mean the event planners (I think it was a restaurant partnered with other non-profits but I may be wrong) no ill will. I get it, this is how business and marketing works. There has to be “something in it for me”. Their hearts are in the right place, and probably have other motivations to create such an event—like a loved one with cancer, perhaps.

But I still wish the benefited organizations (not causes) had been listed up front, and prior to the event taking place. Consumers are being trained to think a “good cause” is a good enough reason to spend money. I don’t need to go into the economics of it all—I’m sure far smarter bloggers than I have tackled this. It just bugs me so much. I research every major purchase, even little ones too. I assume others do so as well. I want the most reliable vehicle, the best coffee maker, the best and most reliable laptop. I refuse to throw money away on shoddy products. Why is this attitude not used in regards to cancer organizations too? Sadly, most people don’t take the time to find out if a non-profit is just wasting money. So it would not work if I went to the organizers of the event and said, “hey maybe more people would come to the event, make it successful, if you revealed the beneficiaries”. Because it would not make any difference, people still show up. “For a good cause” was a good enough selling point.

My annoyance with this topic was compounded when I ran across this statement complete with picture: “Pete Townshend and Eddie Vedder announced a ‘Celebrating the Who’ benefit concert for cancer”.

Sigh. I’ve tackled this before, as have others. We all dislike it when the retail clerk at point of sale asks if we’d like to give money to breast cancer. Uh, no. I want to give money to KILL breast cancer. Leaving off the word research or whatever is so important to many of us. The caption assumes that anyone reading it would know of The Who’s long-time support of a UK charity for teens with cancer, and their creation of a mirror organization in the U.S. Only a jerk would think Vedder and Townshend are trying to do something to benefit cancer itself.

Hey, I never said was NOT a jerk—I AM a jerk! So should I contact the media sources that keep using that or a similar headline, to correct them? Make passive aggressive, finger-wagging statements in comments sections?

This slogan culture, this short-hand way of speaking, this skipping over the details, is doing a disservice to the general understanding of cancer, how charities and fund-rasing works. Yes, I realize I’m a bit over-wordy here on this blog sometimes, so of course I think this way. It’s just that every time I see slogans on ads that say “support cancer” or “benefit for cancer” it feels like hearing nails on a chalkboard.

To me, this is just a small piece of the puzzle of the awareness vs. understanding or education challenge. People like to shop for a cure, show support, but they don’t really know what it means, if the “product” (the charitable group) is any good–and why should they care? They aren’t stuck with the crappy product (not enough money spent on research, too much spent on self-perpetuating ad campaigns). But we are stuck with it.

So, yes, maybe I’m nitpicking today. I’ve just seen this type of thing too many times. I don’t have the energy to bring it up every time I see it. Will it make a difference even if I did?

I’m not even going to go into the clichés I’ve read and heard too often, and the bad compare-diseases-to-get-attention strategies that are just wearing me out lately. Not now, not yet, some other post.

I’m so tired of the way society talks about cancer.

Preemptive Strike

So a week after the Big Announcement I see a blurb about how mothers likely to get post-partum depression can be identified by genetic markers. No mention in the blurb of how to prevent it (I guess not having kids). Of course, any prevention would be dangerous to the fetus I’m sure, so prevention is probably out of the question. Perhaps the treatments currently in place are not a big deal (but I doubt it), don’t know, never been pregnant, and never will, not going to look further into it.

It was the way the information was presented that irked me. Perhaps it is the way, and the amount, and the types of information I consume these days. It’s like science is going “hey look, we can tell you this horrible thing is going to happen to you!” Uh, thanks? It’s like going to the world’s worst psychic, hearing about your impending doom, yet the psychic is pleased with himself for being able to see the future in the cards or crystal ball. He’s an expert at what he does, you should be happy you know your future, what’s the matter with you?

Not saying science or gene research is stupid and should be stopped, I just wish other searches in science were keeping up, so the impending doom can be averted. If you could know the date and nature of your end, do you want to know it? Ugh, forget it, I’m too tired to get into some deep, meaningful, philosophical discussion—I just want to stop my cancer from coming back.

It almost no longer matters to me if they identify the gene mutation that caused my cancer. For starters, I already have cancer, so I can only prevent more cancer. And then for those who don’t have cancer yet, the prevention offered in a word, sucks.

I KNOW I’m not the only one who thinks options like preventative mastectomy and Tamoxifen prescriptions are awful. Why are they awful? Because they are cancer treatments, and treatment sucks. Seems to me a perk of prevention of cancer should, ya know, be the avoidance of treatment.

Is it just me, or are preventative mastectomy and preventative Tamoxifen regimens preemptive strikes masquerading as prevention?

I want something else.

It’s So Simple

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. –Albert Einstein

So all these researchers that study links between obesity/alcohol/exercise and cancer over and over and over are one of two things:

Option 1: If they expect different results, according to Einstein, they are insane.

Option 2: If they expect the same results, they are wasting time and money.

Either way, they need to stop or lose their jobs and funding. Make way for researchers with some original ideas!