Is there a stigma against lung cancer?

The_Minister

It's well known that having a 'fashionable' disease increases your chances of living. It's always been one of my bugbears that things like breast cancer got an entire screening programme, when colon cancer doesn't even have any nationally organised treatment - basically, if your disease has a good lobby group, and sympathetic victims, then you get more money for treatment, even if that isn't the most efficient way to use the money.
Given that the state has limited resources, I always thought that money should be spent in the most efficient way possible, but these lobby groups act like an iron ball on a plastic sheet, distorting where money goes.

I never thought it might be this bad though

In 2006, the National Cancer Institute estimated it spent $1,638 per lung cancer death, compared to $13,519 per breast cancer death and $11,298 per prostate cancer death.

I have no idea what the figures in Ireland are, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar distortions exist here. It is probably the deadliest cancer around (certainly in the USA it is), yet there is a huge bias against it.

And before anyone says its their fault - they deserve it, they smoked:
1. Not everyone with lung cancer smoked
2. Women with cervical cancer caught the virus by their actions (having sex)
3. People with breast cancer have often greatly increased their chances of getting it through their lifestyle, by being obese.

tribulus

The_Minister wrote: »

2. Women with cervical cancer caught the virus by their actions (having sex)

I predict trouble in this thread...

I thought a factor in funding allocation was the rate of occurence of these diseases i.e. breast cancer and prostate cancer being more common?

The_Minister

tribulus wrote: »

I predict trouble in this thread...

I'm just saying that the arguement that their lifestyle choices led to them having cancer could also be applied to other cancers, not just lung cancer.

I thought a factor in funding allocation was the rate of occurence of these diseases i.e. breast cancer and prostate cancer being more common?

I don't think so, but I'm open to being informed if we do things differently here.

Gran Hermano

I recall reading that more women in Ireland get cancer than men but more
men die from cancer - not surprising when you see how much is spent
on the health of men compared to looking after Irish women.

Why blame smokers for getting cancer when obese and fat people are not
targeted for giving themselves diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, etc.

Article from BBC comparing cancer rates in N ireland between men and women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5199952.stm

tallaght01

The thing with breast cancer is that there's often a long fight until you know it's uncurable.

So, that involves operations, chemo etc. Most get through it, but some don't. But it can be a long, costly battle.

With lung cancer, its very often discovered way too late, at the stage where you have to say "we've found it, but it's too advanced to do anything about it". Therefore, it's much cheaper.

You can't really screen for bowel cancer as easily as you can for breast cancer, too. Breast cancer screening is value for money. There's debate whether bowel cancer screening is.

But I agree with you that there are trendy illnesses. I spent a lot of time working in baby intensive care. Our premature babies got anything they want. Same with our cancer kids. But when it comes to preventative medicine, or mentally unwell children, the govt knows no-one gives a hoot, so they don't get the resoures.

sportswear

It's well known that having a 'fashionable' disease increases your chances of living. It's always been one of my bugbears that things like breast cancer got an entire screening programme, when colon cancer doesn't even have any nationally organised treatment - basically, if your disease has a good lobby group, and sympathetic victims, then you get more money for treatment, even if that isn't the most efficient way to use the money.
Given that the state has limited resources, I always thought that money should be spent in the most efficient way possible, but these lobby groups act like an iron ball on a plastic sheet, distorting where money goes.

I never thought it might be this bad though
Quote:
In 2006, the National Cancer Institute estimated it spent $1,638 per lung cancer death, compared to $13,519 per breast cancer death and $11,298 per prostate cancer death.
I have no idea what the figures in Ireland are, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar distortions exist here. It is probably the deadliest cancer around (certainly in the USA it is), yet there is a huge bias against it.

And before anyone says its their fault - they deserve it, they smoked:
1. Not everyone with lung cancer smoked
2. Women with cervical cancer caught the virus by their actions (having sex)
3. People with breast cancer have often greatly increased their chances of getting it through their lifestyle, by being obese.

This is almost all wrong.

The_Minister

sportswear wrote: »

This is almost all wrong.

Details would be nice:)

tallaght01 wrote: »

The thing with breast cancer is that there's often a long fight until you know it's uncurable.

So, that involves operations, chemo etc. Most get through it, but some don't. But it can be a long, costly battle.

With lung cancer, its very often discovered way too late, at the stage where you have to say "we've found it, but it's too advanced to do anything about it". Therefore, it's much cheaper.

You can't really screen for bowel cancer as easily as you can for breast cancer, too. Breast cancer screening is value for money. There's debate whether bowel cancer screening is.

But I agree with you that there are trendy illnesses. I spent a lot of time working in baby intensive care. Our premature babies got anything they want. Same with our cancer kids. But when it comes to preventative medicine, or mentally unwell children, the govt knows no-one gives a hoot, so they don't get the resoures.

So there is a rational explanation for most of the discrepancy, but some of it is probably due to biased allocation of resources based on public priorities?

tallaght01

The_Minister wrote: »

So there is a rational explanation for most of the discrepancy, but some of it is probably due to biased allocation of resources based on public priorities?

It explains a good deal of the discepancy. But I'm not sure if there's biased allocation. There usually is, for political reasons. But that's always been the case, and it always will be.

As long as PR, and being in power for the sake of being in power are the most important things to a government.

Xiney

Odd that this thread should pop up today.

My favourite aunt, my dad's baby sister, has just been diagnosed with lung cancer and I found out yesterday.

She never smoked a day in her life and she isn't around second hand smoke. She's 48 and has always been in great shape.


Probably won't be much money to spend on her though, and it's not because of her disease's stigma. It's more to do with the fact that lung cancer is a pretty swift death sentence.

Kiera

I'm so angered by your term 'fashionable' disease. My sister has breast cancer and i have no doubt she would be very upset with an idiotic term like that.

The_Minister

Kiera wrote: »

I'm so angered by your term 'fashionable' disease. My sister has breast cancer and i have no doubt she would be very upset with an idiotic term like that.

Thats why I put '' around fashionable. I was going to use the word 'popular', but that sounded even worse.

tallaght01

Kiera wrote: »

I'm so angered by your term 'fashionable' disease. My sister has breast cancer and i have no doubt she would be very upset with an idiotic term like that.

Unfortunately some some diseases ARE fashionable. Insofar as there are diseases that people really want to raise money for. These are the same diseases that people kick up murder about when resources are pulled from them.

It doesn't take away from the suffering that anyone goes through during serious illness. But, sadly, some illnesses are more fashionable than others.

Kiera

tallaght01 wrote: »

Unfortunately some some diseases ARE fashionable. Insofar as there are diseases that people really want to raise money for. These are the same diseases that people kick up murder about when resources are pulled from them.

It doesn't take away from the suffering that anyone goes through during serious illness. But, sadly, some illnesses are more fashionable than others.

OMG stop! You can make your point without being so detached from the subject. I know Tallaght01 knows a lot more about it than the OP but using that term over and over is very inconsiderate.

tallaght01

Kiera wrote: »

OMG stop! You can make your point without being so detached from the subject. I know Tallaght01 knows a lot more about it than the OP but using that term over and over is very inconsiderate.

I think I'm right, and it's a term used every day in hospitals literally all around the world.

But, if the terms upsets you I won't use it. Sorry to hear about your sister.

phasers

It's bcause people with lung cancer hack up gross phlegmy stuff

Kiera

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think I'm right, and it's a term used every day in hospitals literally all around the world.

I know you probably hear it everyday but us joe-soaps dont and its a very cold term.

tallaght01 wrote: »

But, if the terms upsets you I won't use it. Sorry to hear about your sister.

Thank you.

Stercus Accidit

Of course its going to be an emotive subject.

But getting upset about terms etc. when there are cold hard facts staring you in the face is counter productive.

Its this attitude exactly why certain illnesses are prioritised over others.


While it is always going to be upsetting, when discussing the realities of the situation it is more important to be honest, than the sanitised non offensive discussion which may exclude some of the real issues.

No-one is disconnected from the subject emotionally by accepting the truth of how these things are perceived, and I'm sure we call all sympatise with Kiera's situation.

But by all means, if there is an upsetting reality to be discussed it should be.

The_Minister

Kiera wrote: »

OMG stop! You can make your point without being so detached from the subject. I know Tallaght01 knows a lot more about it than the OP but using that term over and over is very inconsiderate.

Just to clarify - I didn't invent the phrase, it's used throughout the literature on the subject.

And I have done alot of reading on this subject, and the subject of a national screening programme for prostate cancer, so while I would never dream of arguing with a doctor, I am fairly well read on this topic, but moreso about countries such as America and Canada then Ireland.

And I meant no disrespect to your sister.

EDIT: And I will also refrain from using the term in this thread.

Sangre

Kiera wrote: »

I'm so angered by your term 'fashionable' disease. My sister has breast cancer and i have no doubt she would be very upset with an idiotic term like that.

the thread title didn't give you the slightest indication of what this thread was about? Its a very common term.

Saibh

Sangre wrote: »

the thread title didn't give you the slightest indication of what this thread was about? Its a very common term.

Fashionable is not mentioned in the title of the thread.

I don't think people who get cancer and who are on chemo treatment would class it 'fashionable'

Sangre

Saibh wrote: »

Fashionable is not mentioned in the title of the thread.

I don't think people who get cancer and who are on chemo treatment would class it 'fashionable'

I'm sure they would if they suffered from an illness that didn't get any funding.

Kiera

I completely understand where you are all coming from. I have never heard this term nor would i like anyone with cancer to hear it.

It is a crying shame that certain disease get more publicity than others and that some have a certain stigma ie. lung cancer or AIDS.....

I think its best i stay out of this thread.

galwayrush

Ain't nothing fashionable in any of it from my point of view.:(

tallaght01

I don't want to get involved in this particular part of the debate if it's upsetting people, but the term "fashionable" doesn't relate to the perception BY the sufferer. It refers to the ladies-who-lunch deciding what they're going to raise money for next. Or the radio station's charity push etc.
It also relates to what matters to the media and public when funding gets pulled (eg the news won't give much attention to the poor adolescent mental health services in ireland, but if we pulled beds out of my neonatal intensive care unit, it would be on the front page. Same with cervical cancer vaccines etc).

That's just to clear things up from my point of view.

Saibh

Sangre wrote: »

I'm sure they would if they suffered from an illness that didn't get any funding.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the title of the thread includes the word cancer - I presume we are only talking about cancer?

All I am trying to say is I have never heard people outside the medical profession saying I have a fashionable disease.

tallaght01

So, eh...is there a stigma against lung cancer, then? :P

Saibh

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't want to get involved in this particular part of the debate if it's upsetting people, but the term "fashionable" doesn't relate to the perception BY the sufferer. It refers to the ladies-who-lunch deciding what they're going to raise money for next. Or the radio station's charity push etc.
It also relates to what matters to the media and public when funding gets pulled (eg the news won't give much attention to the poor adolescent mental health services in ireland, but if we pulled beds out of my neonatal intensive care unit, it would be on the front page. Same with cervical cancer vaccines etc).

That's just to clear things up from my point of view.

Saw this post after I had posted my last response. (Was using an old laptop which was not behaving)

panda100

The_Minister wrote: »

It's well known that having a 'fashionable' disease increases your chances of living. It's always been one of my bugbears that things like breast cancer got an entire screening programme, when colon cancer doesn't even have any nationally organised treatment - basically, if your disease has a good lobby group, and sympathetic victims, then you get more money for treatment, even if that isn't the most efficient way to use the money..

Could it have something to do with Breast cancer mainly affecting more affluent women,hence 'BreastCheck' being located in the heart of affluence, D4

Id say prostate cancer for men is seen in a similar , 'trendy' light, with lots of celebs speaking out such as Lance Armstrong and Des Bishop.

Both Breast Cancer and prostate Cancer were covered in a somewhat glamorous light in 'Sex and the city'.

Oh and Also anyone notice how the front of some trashy Sunday tabloid called Jade goody 'a cancer star'?!

Oh and answer to OP's question, I thought respiratory medicine was quite well funded in Ireland?No stigma as far as Im concerned.

BrianD3

I remember an article in the Irish Times which compared how often lung cancer is mentioned in the media compared to breast cancer. There were something like 10 times more articles on breast cancer than there were on lung cancer. And for the articles that did mention lung cancer, the theme of the articles was the perils of smoking whereas with breast cancer the general theme was how to screen for and treat the disease.

Having said that, there are good reasons why lung cancer and smoking are mentioned together. Smoking is a major risk factor for lung cancer, this is almost universally accepted now after decades of research. Whereas the relationships between, say, breast cancer and obesity or colon cancer and eating red meat are far less clear cut.

A person's diet may increase their risk of certain cancers but
a) Things are not clear cut.
b) Everyone has to eat. Nobody has to smoke.

IvySlayer

Breast cancer has a day for collecting money, Think Pink or something?

Why doesn't Lung Caner, and the many hundreds of various forms of cancer? Shouldn't all cancer charities be welded together? Also smoking is a a major factor in lung cancer, but not all cases of lung cancer are smoke-related.

lady_j

Breast cancer can be caught early and therefore more money is put into breast cancer awareness. from what I understand (from family experience) that the earliest signs of lung cancer, a bad cough, back pain come when the cancer is quite advanced and there is not effective early screening of this illness.

KikiDee

IvySlayer wrote: »

Why doesn't Lung Caner, and the many hundreds of various forms of cancer? Shouldn't all cancer charities be welded together?

+1

lady_j wrote: »

Breast cancer can be caught early and therefore more money is put into breast cancer awareness. from what I understand (from family experience) that the earliest signs of lung cancer, a bad cough, back pain come when the cancer is quite advanced and there is not effective early screening of this illness.

My mam died from lung cancer. She had constant back pain. The thing with lung cancer is that the symptoms are so like emphysemia (correct my spelling if i'm wrong!!) so if a patient is a smoker, hosptials (from my experiences) will treat that first before testing for lung cancer.


Back to topic, I don't know much baout breast cancer but I'd imagine it's as horrendous as any other cancer disease and feel it should be treated accordingly. All cancers are potential killers be it extremely common cancers or extremely rare cancers. Thus, media etc shouldn't portray one type of cancer as a sort of 'main' cancer if you get my meaning.

The_Conductor

A big +1 to the suggestion that cancer funding should not differentiate between the different manifestations of cancer. Its very gut wrenching to see everyone out fundraising for breast cancer- when your wife is undergoing chemotherapy for oesaphageal cancer than no-one was willing to do simple tests which would have accurately diagnosed. I asked about this- and was told- oh, its normally older people who smoke, as shes not old and doesn't smoke- it doesn't meet our criteria. Also- as there is such a low recovery rate, and its older people normally- its not publicly acceptable to fund research in that area.

Further to that- different long term conditions and illnesses do predispose people to developing further problems, some of which could include cancers, in later life- but there is no followup to monitor the health of these people.

I make a point of avoiding 'breast cancer awareness', 'pink ribbon day', 'the Marie Keating Foundation'- there are a whole list of them- dedicated solely to breast cancer. Occasionally collectors try to guilt you in making a donation- one girl on Dawson Street actually started crying when I told why I was delibertly not donating to her charity- I wasn't trying to be cruel, she was just in my face and refusing to let me go.

If there are charities that I always go out of my way to support- its the Childrens Hospital, Hospice and Simon.

I feel very very hurt when I see people out collecting for Breast Cancer research- as I feel its trying to differentiate Breast cancer from all the other cancers- and is a trendy cause to collect for. Its the illnesses and conditions that simply aren't trendy causes in the media that are totally off the radar, and those suffering from them often feel that the public at large simply doesn't care.

If you have a lobby group, or look good in the media- you get noticed and get funds- if you don't you're at the bottom of a list and lucky if you get lumped in with a few other things for a mention.

Wibbs

I'd echo what has been said before about lung cancer. As it is usually rapidly fatal(though I can think of two people who survived it. 10 years +) and is associated with an unfashionable habit it won't get the attention except as an anti smoking tool. And that's OK, but it is one of the most common cancers and quite a few who don't smoke get it and quite a few smokers don't. I think it should have more of an onus put on it.

As far as preventative scanning goes I would have thought the only way would be to get smokers or ex smokers full body MRI scans to spot potential signs of the disease. Not easy and damned expensive to boot. Though ful body scans would likely pick up other early stage tumours too I would imagine? Maybe if they could get it cheaper, full body MRI's for 40/50/60 year olds may save lives? X rays AFAIR aren't much use until the tumour gets too big to be effectively treated and I would imagine exposing a smokers lung to a burst of X rays may not be helpful if there are pre cancerous cells present. Dunno about that though I did read of a study in california that implicated chest xrays with later development of lung cancer(and heart disease apparently?). Dunno what the cut off point was though.

I would agree with all of what Tallght01 has written too, particularly about the ladies who lunch fashion aspect and their and our perceptions of where money should go. It's usually at odds with the stats and how medical professionals at the sharp end feel is worthy of more research.

Money better spent in prevention, education, research into treatments for all different forms of cancer or preventative treatments would be a better bet. I'm sure that if somebody comes up with a 90% cure for lung cancer it would probably impact all or most forms of cancer too.

Wagon

smccarrick wrote: »

I make a point of avoiding 'breast cancer awareness', 'pink ribbon day', 'the Marie Keating Foundation'- there are a whole list of them- dedicated solely to breast cancer.

Pretty intellegent approach to it I must say. It's a lot better than my reasoning for not giving money to them, ie. im a scabby bastard.

But it is a depressing state of affairs when certain diseases are lumped into a 'fashionable' catagory. Kind of summerises society of today when there's people out there who decide who's more deserving to live and who is more deserving to die.

The_Minister

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does-it-add-up/ has some statistics.
Also, some great statistics here http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/Table.aspx?Group=3f&Year=2004&Display=n

Just FYI, what made me start this thread was a post here:

Politically Correct Cancer
My wife has just begun a battle against lung cancer (I don't want to turn this thread into our personal struggles -- a topic for another thread). But we've spent much time in the past few weeks watching TV from her hospital bed, and have been barraged with commercials for a 3 day walk raising funds for breast cancer.

We find this a bit depressing...my wife says she wishes she got that cute pink cancer, and not stupid ol' lung cancer.

So first, a general question: why does each kind of cancer need to raise funds separately?

And second - given that there are separate fund raisers for different kinds of cancer, an element of political correctness has crept in. Who gets breast cancer? Women. It's a cause that women (and everyone, for that matter) can rally around. Who gets lung cancer? Smokers. Those people are pariahs and get what they deserve.

Wibbs

Judging from the ministers links there lung and pancreatic have the highest mortality and lung appears to be the third most common. It is a bit crazy that it doesn't get the funding. OK lets say the world stopped smoking tomorrow there would be a drop off no doubt but there would still be people dying from it. I can't for the life of me find the pubmed article but I remember reading one stat from California that in round terms noted that while the smoking rate in males had gone from almost 50 odd % in the 40's to 12 odd % in the late 90's the rate of lung cancer stayed almost the same across that time. Heavier smog and other environmental contaminants were implicated(plus people living longer of course). People in radon areas are susceptible too. Even with smokers, yes you don't have to smoke, but similar at least could be said for colon cancer where a diet high in crap is strongly implicated. You may have to eat, but you don't have to eat crap.

CathyMoran

Huh, and my cancer is so rare that it does not even get a mention - oesophageal cancer is one of the worst one to get (if you can find stats), but it is not "trendy" as it hits mainly old obese smokers and drinkers...sorry, rant over.

MJOR

+ 1 For Cathy Morans response. My lovely father died from Oesophagael cancer and was told for numerous months that he has oral thrush, tonsilitis and various other problems. He was told to gargle disprin by his GP and that resulted in him getting a stroke. Eventually I insisted on him seeing a consultant and he was diagnosed within a week. I will never forget the look of desolation on his face when he was told the mortality rate and treatment effectiveness for this form of cancer. His sister died three years later from O. C too (in new york)

My Sister has had breast cancer and every Aunt and uncle I have has died from different forms of it. My uncle survived lung cancer.

I think that regardless of the type this country's cancer care is limited and underfunded.

There are familial cancer centres around the country that you can get checked out in if you have had many family members die from it.

Phototoxin

I did an essay on the difference in approaches to tacking breast cancer compared to prostate cancer. I could dig it out if anyone wants it

rhapsodyway

As a breast cancer survivor, I couldn't agree with you more. I certainly felt that it was almost trendy to have the disease and felt guilty to get so much support when others suffering from other illnesses (not just cancer) are left with minimal or no support. I am so sorry that this has been your experience.

road_2_damascus

The_Minister wrote: »

Thats why I put '' around fashionable. I was going to use the word 'popular', but that sounded even worse.

Minister, you cant be very smart; no offence, but your command of the English language serves only as a handicap to your endeavours

The_Minister

Phototoxin wrote: »

I did an essay on the difference in approaches to tacking breast cancer compared to prostate cancer. I could dig it out if anyone wants it

That could be interesting; what was it for?

road_2_damascus wrote: »

Minister, you cant be very smart; no offence, but your command of the English language serves only as a handicap to your endeavours

As has been stated earlier in the thread, the normal phrase that is used when discussing this issue is "fashionable disease". Since I find that phrase slightly distasteful, albeit perfectly correct from the point of view of the English language, I put the word "fashionable" in quotation marks.
As for the state of my English, when I am writing essays, letters or articles it is actually quite good, and I would be quite well-read, but on boards I don't pay a huge amount of attention to the standard of English that I use; I only want it to be legible, and for the point that I am making to be communicated to the people reading it.

Spider_Baby

MJOR wrote: »

There are familial cancer centres around the country that you can get checked out in if you have had many family members die from it.

Would you have any more information on these centres? I.e. where they are in Dublin, costs involved etc.
Thanks.