Prostate cancer research underfunded.

Gauss

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20875488

It seems some cancers are getting preferential treatment ahead of others.

In the UK.

Froyo

Uh-oh....

mike65

Sexy cancer always get the cash, tits are sexy, your bums interior is not.

Larianne

Out you go with your bucket so.

CreepingDeath

Gauss wrote: »

It seems some cancers are getting preferential treatment ahead of others.

Or that the people who want funding for that particular research are trying to get public support to fund their next annual budget in the new year.

I'm all for cancer research, but at certain stages in the year, there's a political or selfish grant chasing element to it too.

saiint

picking brown daisies

kneemos

My doctor had his finger up my bum ond day,took him ages,don't know what the hell he was at.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

men dying is more politically bearable than women dying

Death and Taxes

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

men dying is more politically bearable than women dying

Ah now, bit OTT that!

mike65

Collectively men are not politically organised with regard to health, whereas women are.

Fox_In_Socks

Whatre you going to do about it, OP?

Gauss

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Whatre you going to do about it, OP?

I won't do anything about it. I welcome death and suffering.

Fox_In_Socks

Gauss wrote: »

I won't do anything about it. I welcome death and suffering.

As do I. Mwahahahahaha!

Harry Burns

Larianne wrote: »

Out you go with your bucket so.

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Whatre you going to do about it, OP?

Don't you just love that whenever a man points out inequality in society they are immediately treated as if they should be out doing something about it themselves. Rarely if ever would a woman be met with such a response were they to have highlighted a similar example of blatant life shortening sexism in society but hey, sure don't lose any sleep over it, it's just men we are talking about here.

Now where were we: Women 2013, go them!!

stimpson

I don't get the cancer research charities. Surely the multi trillion dollar pharma industry can pay for their own research. If the characins come up with a cure do they provide it for free?

kneemos

When was there ever a breakthrough in any type of cancer research,billions get spent presumably every year in what seems to have developed into an industry in itself.We have charities dedicated to it,governments give grants for it yet all the research leads nowhere,you have to wonder if the money could be more wisely spent or indeed if it's being spent wisly at all.

gingernut125

I always give to movember charities.

Fox_In_Socks

Harry Burns wrote: »

Don't you just love that whenever a man points out inequality in society they are immediately treated as if they should be out doing something about it themselves. Rarely if ever would a woman be met with such a response were they to have highlighted a similar example of blatant life shortening sexism in society but hey, sure don't lose any sleep over it, it's just men we are talking about here.

Now where were we: Women 2013, go them!!

Like, I said, do something about if you feel strongly about it.

DrumSteve

Harry Burns wrote: »

Don't you just love that whenever a man points out inequality in society they are immediately treated as if they should be out doing something about it themselves. Rarely if ever would a woman be met with such a response were they to have highlighted a similar example of blatant life shortening sexism in society but hey, sure don't lose any sleep over it, it's just men we are talking about here.

Now where were we: Women 2013, go them!!

TBF in AH they would... Everyone is hated equally here.

Dotsie~tmp

Squeeky wheels get the oil. Men are often "happy" to ignore symtoms until its too late and they wind up dead. Do you hear them complaining? No just their families and women folk on their behalf maybe. I understand it but cant explain it.

checkyabadself

It would be nice to see a health drive for men similar to those blanket "breast check" and cervical smear tests. It`d surely be well worth the money.

Pottler

This is truly awful. They need to get their fingers out, roll up their sleeves and start making some noise. If they prostrated themselves at the door of the health service i'm sure someone powerful could grease the wheels and crack open the coffers. Someone needs to get up the bottom of this neglect and shine a light up it. Sorry, on it. I made an ar5e of that.

Fox_In_Socks

Pottler wrote: »

This is truly awful. They need to get their fingers out, roll up their sleeves and start making some noise. If they prostrated themselves at the door of the health service i'm sure someone powerful could grease the wheels and crack open the coffers. Someone needs to get up the bottom of this neglect and shine a light up it. Sorry, on it. I made an ar5e of that.

You should see someone for that fixation. Fixasstion, if you will.:pac:

The King of Moo

There's no sexism here. Men are generally not as willing to have potential problems assessed our talk openly about them as women, therefore prostate cancer is not as well-publicised as other forms of cancer, and thus doesn't attract the funding.

It's truly pathetic that some idiots try to find anti-male sexism in this situation, or imagine some kind of our cancer vs their cancer situation. I've seen different family members suffer from both prostate cancer and breast cancer, and there's no prejudice our discrimination in terms of how people approach them in any way, in terms of funding, treatment our how people deal with it or support their lived ones.

I honest can't believe that someone might actually look for sexism in this.

Bullseye1

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Ah now, bit OTT that!

But true.

gcgirl

Women go to Doctors when they think something is wrong, Lads don't, unless you frog march them down to the doctor yourself, A few years back they were encouraging guys to get a guy nct done health wise.

Fox_In_Socks

gcgirl wrote: »

Women go to Doctors when they think something is wrong, Lads don't, unless you frog march them down to the doctor yourself, A few years back they were encouraging guys to get a guy nct done health wise.

When women see blood in the toilet after using it, they go to the doctor immediately.

When men see blood in the toilet after using it, they turn off the light the next time they are going.:pac:

NegativeCreep

Does the doctor really have to put his finger in your ass to check for prostate cancer? Surely they can invent some less intrusive machine to scan the area. I'd say more men would go then.

flutered

Pottler wrote: »

This is truly awful. They need to get their fingers out, roll up their sleeves and start making some noise. If they prostrated themselves at the door of the health service i'm sure someone powerful could grease the wheels and crack open the coffers. Someone needs to get up the bottom of this neglect and shine a light up it. Sorry, on it. I made an ar5e of that.

when i was diagnoised (accidently) i had a choice wait 18 months on the medical card or shell out and be seen in 2 weeks.

flutered

NegativeCreep wrote: »

Does the doctor really have to put his finger in your ass to check for prostate cancer? Surely they can invent some less intrusive machine to scan the area. I'd say more men would go then.

a blood test every six months once a man reaches the age of 40, is sorry should be mandatory.

Pottler

flutered wrote: »

when i was diagnoised (accidently) i had a choice wait 18 months on the medical card or shell out and be seen in 2 weeks.

All good, but just what sort of an accident was it? Did you sit on a proctologists head by mistake and he had a look around while waiting to be rescued? Or did some clever dick just feel there was somthing wrong with you? And, did you wait or shell out??

GalwayGuy2

Women go to Doctors when they think something is wrong, Lads don't, unless you frog march them down to the doctor yourself, A few years back they were encouraging guys to get a guy nct done health wise.

A lot make a mirror image of that argument for the lower pay scale for women in Ireland:P

LivelineDipso

When men do organise and stand up for men's issues they are laughed at for being weak by other men, or sexist thugs by women.


Most women prefer insensitive thugs while ignoring/looking down upon the decent men and thus proclaiming "men are all pigs!" constantly.

This leads to an issue today were men do not really care about themselves. Hence the lack of medical awareness. Women think they do not need men. Well until they see a spider in the bathtub.

GalwayGuy2

Most women prefer insensitive thugs while ignoring/looking down upon the decent men and thus proclaiming "men are all pigs!" constantly.

This leads to an issue today were men do not really care about themselves. Hence the lack of medical awareness. Women think they do not need men. Well until they see a spider in the bathtub.

Lovely group of generalizations.

Harry Burns

The King of Moo wrote: »

There's no sexism here. Men are generally not as willing to have potential problems assessed our talk openly about them as women, therefore prostate cancer is not as well-publicised as other forms of cancer, and thus doesn't attract the funding.

Women talk about it more and so that explains the vast difference in funding and government attention that each forms of cancer gets?

Health conditions as serious as cancer should not be funded on the basis of how vocal the sufferers of it are.

It's truly pathetic that some idiots try to find anti-make sexism in this situation, our imagine some kind of our cancer vs their cancer situation.

Nice underhand way of personally abusing other users on the thread, good for you.

I've seen different family members suffer from both prostate cancer and breast cancer, and there's no prejudice our discrimination in terms of how people approach them in any way, in terms of funding, treatment our how people deal with it or support their lived ones.

I honest can't believe that someone might actually look for sexism in this.

You don't have to "look" for sexism in this area, as it is blindly obvious to anyone that views the figures and statistics associated with it. It is not just sexism, but accepted sexism and so much so that society doesn't even blink at the scandalous difference of awareness, research and campaigns of breast / cervical cancer compared to that of testicular / prostrate cancer.

A good article that highlights the issue:

Why are breast-cancer sufferers considered more worthy of respect and research

Breast cancer is now without question the most-talked-about Big C. People run marathons in the name of defeating it. There are primetime adverts, featuring survivors in pink wigs, that tell us how important it is to research it. The pink ribbon for breast cancer is everywhere, not only on decent people's lapels but also printed on the side of cosmetic products. Newspaper columnists who have been struck by breast cancer have been given space to write about it. Judging from this furious public focus on breast cancer, you could be forgiven for thinking that it is the most common and deadliest cancer. But it isn't.

In the US, for example, where the "pink dollars" campaign to defeat breast cancer is even more influential than it is in Britain, there were more new cases of both lung cancer and prostate cancer in 2010 than there were of breast cancer. And yet breast cancer received more research funding from America's National Cancer Institute than those other two cancers combined: where lung cancer, the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the US in 2010, received $281.9 million in research funding, and prostate cancer, the second most common, received $300.9 million, breast cancer, the third most common, received $631.2 million. Are breast-cancer sufferers more deserving of government help than lung-cancer sufferers? Why?

It's a similar story in Britain. Breast cancer is slightly more common here than lung cancer – for example, there were about 48,000 new diagnoses of breast cancer in 2009 and about 42,000 of lung cancer. And yet where breast-cancer research receives nearly 20 per cent of the National Cancer Research Institute's budget, lung-cancer research receives only 5 per cent. What is it about breast-cancer sufferers that makes them four times more deserving of assistance than lung-cancer sufferers? Alarmingly, in 2002 only £3.5 million was being spent on research into lung cancer. Today it is £11 million, which is still a drop in the ocean compared with breast cancer. Perhaps it isn't surprising, then, that where in Canada more than 18 per cent of lung-cancer sufferers survive for five years and in Australia 17 per cent do, in Britain less than 9% do.

The deaths of some lung-cancer sufferers in Britain can be attributed to the cultivation of a cancer hierarchy, to the popularisation of certain forms of cancer research and the denigration of others. That is, one of the unwitting consequences of the "pink industry", of the media-fuelled, politically sanctioned focus on fighting breast cancer above all other diseases, is that other sick people are not getting either the medical breakthroughs or the sympathy that they deserve. It isn't hard to see why lung-cancer sufferers elicit less media pity than breast-cancer sufferers. They are seen as having brought their disease on themselves (9 out of 10 cases are caused by smoking). And also, lung cancer is largely a disease that strikes manual workers, being more common in poor parts of the North where smoking levels are high than it is in the trendy bits of London where cancer-research campaigners and pink-ribbon wearers tend to live, so who cares?

But a civilised society ought to tackle every terrible disease equally, regardless of what caused it, and regardless of whether its sufferers are gruff blokes who love cigarettes or middle-class women who have led unimpeachably healthy lives.

3ndahalfof6

Also it is not a cancer that kills in 3 weeks or 3 years, prostate cancer from start to death can take up to 10-12 years, so it is not out there as a quick killer,

but things are changing, more men are getting checked and if detected early it has a high success rate of being cured,,,

so there must be some research of some kind being done.

LivelineDipso

Does chemo work?

Serious question. I know no one who survived - they just went through hell. I read somewhere that it works on testicular cancer very well, but the survival rates for other cancers using chemo is fairly depressing.

flutered

Pottler wrote: »

All good, but just what sort of an accident was it? Did you sit on a proctologists head by mistake and he had a look around while waiting to be rescued? Or did some clever dick just feel there was somthing wrong with you? And, did you wait or shell out??

i had to have bloods done for a liver problem, as all the males on my mothers side had it, i asked to doc to include the prostate test as well, it came up positive, i then had a biospey, this was negitave, 3 months later the oncologist said it was best to have another biospey as the bloods were so high, this time it was positive.

3ndahalfof6

flutered wrote: »

i had to have bloods done for a liver problem, as all the males on my mothers side had it, i asked to doc to include the prostate test as well, it came up positive, i then had a biospey, this was negitave, 3 months later the oncologist said it was best to have another biospey as the bloods were so high, this time it was positive.

Tough stations F, but it is one of the cancers that can be fixed (cured) I feel for you, be strong be positive, while it is easy to say that it is the one way you can beat it.

QuiteInterestin

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

Also it is not a cancer that kills in 3 weeks or 3 years, prostate cancer from start to death can take up to 10-12 years, so it is not out there as a quick killer

Also as prostate cancer often develops in men in their 70s and 80s and has a longer progression rate compared to other cancers, for many men other health problems/old age will cause their death long before prostate cancer every will. I have 2 relatives with prostate cancer. One was diagnosed in his 60s, and due to his younger age and more aggressive tumour received radiation therapy and was cured. Another, in his early 80s, was diagnosed a few years ago, but due to his increased age and multiple health issues has his PSA levels monitored and attends a clinic at his local hospital every 6 months but does not receive active treatment.

up for anything

NegativeCreep wrote: »

Does the doctor really have to put his finger in your ass to check for prostate cancer? Surely they can invent some less intrusive machine to scan the area. I'd say more men would go then.

This is the very reason why there is a problem with men's health.

Jesus, laddie, do you think we women enjoy lying back with our legs apart having our cervices stretched open while another instrument takes a scraping while trying to make hairdresser conversation with the doctor doing it. Also it's not terribly enjoyable or dignified standing in front of a machine while a nurse grabs your boobs and places them in on a machine to be squashed and x-rayed. We do it because it's better than finding out too late that we have cancer. No one can afford to keep their dignity intact if they don't want their health to suffer.

kneemos

Bill Bailey's just been fronting a quite informative ad for postrate cancer on ITV4 as coincidence would have it.

Fox_In_Socks

up for anything wrote: »

This is the very reason why there is a problem with men's health.

Jesus, laddie, do you think we women enjoy lying back with our legs apart having our cervices stretched open while another instrument takes a scraping while trying to make hairdresser conversation with the doctor doing it. Also it's not terribly enjoyable or dignified standing in front of a machine while a nurse grabs your boobs and places them in on a machine to be squashed and x-rayed. We do it because it's better than finding out too late that we have cancer. No one can afford to keep their dignity intact if they don't want their health to suffer.

They could have come up with something more medical for prostate examinations. Like a finger on a stick.:pac:

Madam_X

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

men dying is more politically bearable than women dying

Harry Burns wrote: »

Don't you just love that whenever a man points out inequality in society they are immediately treated as if they should be out doing something about it themselves. Rarely if ever would a woman be met with such a response were they to have highlighted a similar example of blatant life shortening sexism in society but hey, sure don't lose any sleep over it, it's just men we are talking about here.

Now where were we: Women 2013, go them!!

And you also get the hostile "Women are cuntts, they've got it way better" attitude on these type threads (see quote above yours), often the sole reason for them being started, so I guess that helps balance things out.

But yeh, fuk anyone hoping things might improve for women internationally in 2013 and maybe a few less rapes in their daily lives.

The King of Moo

Harry Burns wrote: »

Women talk about it more and so that explains the vast difference in funding and government attention that each forms of cancer gets?

Health conditions as serious as cancer should not be funded on the basis of how vocal the sufferers of it are.

Yes: the logic behind this has already been explained. The greater openness in discussion of breast cancer, for example, means there is greater public awareness of it and its frequency and dangers, and more people are willing to fundraise for it and donate towards charities which seek to fight it. There is also greater awareness of it and influence on those in government who make funding decisions. There's no sexism involved.

Harry Burns wrote: »

Nice underhand way of personally abusing other users on the thread, good for you.



You don't have to "look" for sexism in this area, as it is blindly obvious to anyone that views the figures and statistics associated with it. It is not just sexism, but accepted sexism and so much so that society doesn't even blink at the scandalous difference of awareness, research and campaigns of breast / cervical cancer compared to that of testicular / prostrate cancer.

A good article that highlights the issue:

It's a pretty poor article really. The only interesting point it raises is that there's a broad tendency to blame lung-cancer sufferers for their illness, which is a very obvious point which anyone could guess is true. It then attempts to suggest there's a class bias in the lack of funding for lung cancer, without any evidence to back that up.
It doesn't have anything to say about prostrate cancer or sexism.

LivelineDipso wrote: »

When men do organise and stand up for men's issues they are laughed at for being weak by other men, or sexist thugs by women.


Most women prefer insensitive thugs while ignoring/looking down upon the decent men and thus proclaiming "men are all pigs!" constantly.

This leads to an issue today were men do not really care about themselves. Hence the lack of medical awareness. Women think they do not need men. Well until they see a spider in the bathtub.

This is absolute drivel. I really can't believe that effort went into typing this. It's the extremist stuff like this based on ridiculous generalisations without any evidence to back it up that gives the men who genuinely do wish to redress the balance in cases where men suffer discrimination a bad name.

Czarcasm

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

They could have come up with something more medical for prostate examinations. Like a finger on a stick.:pac:

Facking hell!

Ohh I'm weak :pac:

Jimoslimos

The King of Moo wrote: »

There's no sexism here. Men are generally not as willing to have potential problems assessed our talk openly about them as women, therefore prostate cancer is not as well-publicised as other forms of cancer, and thus doesn't attract the funding.

It's truly pathetic that some idiots try to find anti-make sexism in this situation, our imagine some kind of our cancer vs their cancer situation. I've seen different family members suffer from both prostate cancer and breast cancer, and there's no prejudice our discrimination in terms of how people approach them in any way, in terms of funding, treatment our how people deal with it or support their lived ones.

I honest can't believe that someone might actually look for sexism in this.

+1. There's a whole myriad of reasons why certain cancers receive funding over others. Sexism isn't one of them.

Return for investment tends to be the major one, most health departments have a limited amount of funds to spend on saving the maximum number of patients. If better results are seen targeting certain cancers then that's where the money goes. At the base level it is a numbers game, nothing to do with sex.

flutered wrote: »

i had to have bloods done for a liver problem, as all the males on my mothers side had it, i asked to doc to include the prostate test as well, it came up positive, i then had a biospey, this was negitave, 3 months later the oncologist said it was best to have another biospey as the bloods were so high, this time it was positive.

Indeed, I'm guessing it was a PSA test you had done which in itself isn't a cancer marker and rises naturally with age. When used to diagnose PC it suffers notoriously with poor sensitivity & specificity - still better than nothing.
Believe me multinational companies will have no problem spending money on developing prostate cancer specific diagnostics (there's a few in the pipeline already). That test, when released, will sell like hotcakes.

Ageing Male population in developed World + prostate cancer = $$$

up for anything

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

They could have come up with something more medical for prostate examinations. Like a finger on a stick.:pac:

I'd favour a finger on a stick of dynamite.

pjmn

Prostate Cancer Institute established in Galway under the direction of Prof Frank Sullivan


http://prostatecancerinstitute.ie/aboutus.php#2

3ndahalfof6

pjmn wrote: »

Prostate Cancer Institute established in Galway under the direction of Prof Frank Sullivan


http://prostatecancerinstitute.ie/aboutus.php#2

This is true he does not mince his words.