Cancer battles

Hammer89

Is it just me, or is 'battle' a really poor word that pretty much everybody uses to describe someone's struggle against cancer, particularly if it's terminal? You read it in the media and hear people talking about this so-called battle, where a person fights against a growth that only state-of-the-art equipment can see.

I realise it's only meant figureatively, but even then it doesn't make a lot of sense because it's not really a 'battle' if you're terminally ill, is it? It's a question of when, and when it happens that person has apparently lost their battle against cancer.

'Battle' is a bad word because in that situation it's plausible to believe that some people - some stupid people, admittedly - may think, 'Oh well maybe he or she just didn't fight hard enough'.

Is that a fair assessment? Obviously not, because strength isn't in the equation and if strength isn't in the equation then words like 'battle' and 'fight' shouldn't be either.

SEPT 23 1989

Very despressing subject on a Friday night in the height of a heatwave

Atoms for Peace

It's a fairly cromulent term.

Hammer89

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Very despressing subject on a Friday night in the height of a heatwave

I'm battling sunstroke at the moment so not much else to do.

Hammer89

Hammer89 wrote: »

'Battle' is a bad word because in that situation it's plausible to believe that some people - some stupid people, admittedly - may think, 'Oh well maybe he or she just didn't fight hard enough'.

It would astound me if anyone - stupid or otherwise - has ever thought or articulated that.

Trigger Happy

If you ever have to deal with cancer then it does feel like a battle that is fcking hard to win.
And semantics is the last thing on your, or your loved ones, minds.

dense

Yes, I've always thought that the battle or "fight" against cancer places a sometimes unwelcome societal onus on the patient to become some sort of superhuman warrior.

And I'm not sure if that's a really good idea given the circumstances.



On the other hand, I suppose it does boil down to trying to promote a you can do it attitude.


And I don't know how important that is in the scheme of this.

Hammer89

Deleted User wrote: »

It would astound me if anyone - stupid or otherwise - has ever thought or articulated that.

I didn't say articulate. I said they "may think" it and why wouldn't they? After all, cancer is a battle, even though you can't possibly win in quite a lot of cases.

Tom Mann Centuria

Danny Baker had a good quote on this, after his treatment for cancer.

“You are the battleground, You are the Normandy Beach, you are Hastings in 1066. You don’t fight it. It’s nice if that helps you. You don’t battle it. You’re helpless. Science is fighting it.”

bazz26

OP, maybe you should pay a visit to your local hospice and have a chat with someone who is or has battled it, in order to get a proper understanding of the term. Just because it can be terminal doesn't mean people don't fight it till their last breath.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Hammer89 wrote: »

Is it just me, or is 'battle' a really poor word that pretty much everybody uses to describe someone's struggle against cancer, particularly if it's terminal? You read it in the media and hear people talking about this so-called battle, where a person fights against a growth that only state-of-the-art equipment can see.

I realise it's only meant figureatively, but even then it doesn't make a lot of sense because it's not really a 'battle' if you're terminally ill, is it? It's a question of when, and when it happens that person has apparently lost their battle against cancer.

'Battle' is a bad word because in that situation it's plausible to believe that some people - some stupid people, admittedly - may think, 'Oh well maybe he or she just didn't fight hard enough'.

Is that a fair assessment? Obviously not, because strength isn't in the equation and if strength isn't in the equation then words like 'battle' and 'fight' shouldn't be either.

I was tempted to ignore this but ..

Are you serious?

I have had family and friends who most certainly battled with cancer. Getting up each day and trying to live some sort of normal existence was a daily battle. Struggling with chemotherapy was very much a battle. Feeling like the walking dead and putting a brave face on for your young children is a battle.


"Strength isn't in the equation"? Now that's just ignorance.

Hammer89

Hammer89 wrote: »

I didn't say articulate. I said they "may think" it and why wouldn't they? After all, cancer is a battle, even though you can't possibly win in quite a lot of cases.

In my experience, there is a huge amount of public goodwill and sympathy towards cancer patients. Again, I don't think anyone attributes weakness to those that succumb to it ( or 'lose the battle'). Odd thread to be honest.

jaxxx

Have you had cancer op? From the tone of your post, I would tend to think you haven't. Well, I have. Another life time ago. Some forms are worse than others. Some depend on the location. Regardless, it's never an easy fight. It's never a pleasant fight. It's not like fighting off some bug. It is a pure sh1tshow. So while you may not have direct control of an arsenal of weaponry to combat it, it is still very much a battle. It is your body, your mind fighting it. Of course it's a f*cking battle. Win or lose. It's not about fighting hard enough because you have no control over how hard you fight. The only thing you can control is how you manage and mitigate (if possible) the effects.

Tom Mann Centuria

Keegan Loud Silver wrote: »

I was tempted to ignore this but ..

Are you serious?

I have had family and friends who most certainly battled with cancer. Getting up each day and trying to live some sort of normal existence was a daily battle. Struggling with chemotherapy was very much a battle. Feeling like the walking dead and putting a brave face on for your young children is a battle.


"Strength isn't in the equation"? Now that's just ignorance.

Its a valid point, the battle needn't be the medicine v the cancer, but battling to eat, to drink, to function whilst the treatment goes on.

Hammer89

Keegan Loud Silver wrote: »

I was tempted to ignore this but ..

Are you serious?

I have had family and friends who most certainly battled with cancer. Getting up each day and trying to live some sort of normal existence was a daily battle. Struggling with chemotherapy was very much a battle. Feeling like the walking dead and putting a brave face on for your young children is a battle.

Well no because we're talking about the disease, not the management of it.

The "battle" that people refer to is a metaphorical fight against the cancer itself and it seems very unfair to me that if someone dies of cancer then they have somehow lost the battle even though success or failure was completely out of their hands.

Your Face

The OP is a ****.

Hammer89

Hammer89 wrote: »

Well no because we're talking about the disease, not the management of it.

The "battle" that people refer to is a metaphorical fight against the cancer itself and it seems very unfair to me that if someone dies of cancer then they have somehow lost the battle even though success or failure was completely out of their hands.

In fairness to you, I have just googled 'cancer battle' (as you do) and there is a literature on how the battle metaphor may harm cancer patients.

So you may have a point.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Hammer89 wrote: »

Is it just me, or is 'battle' a really poor word that pretty much everybody uses to describe someone's struggle against cancer, particularly if it's terminal? You read it in the media and hear people talking about this so-called battle, where a person fights against a growth that only state-of-the-art equipment can see.

I realise it's only meant figureatively, but even then it doesn't make a lot of sense because it's not really a 'battle' if you're terminally ill, is it? It's a question of when, and when it happens that person has apparently lost their battle against cancer.

'Battle' is a bad word because in that situation it's plausible to believe that some people - some stupid people, admittedly - may think, 'Oh well maybe he or she just didn't fight hard enough'.

Is that a fair assessment? Obviously not, because strength isn't in the equation and if strength isn't in the equation then words like 'battle' and 'fight' shouldn't be either.

I've been in more than one or two battles during my career, and the thoughts of facing cancer petrifies me more than any battlefield I've ever witnessed.

I think its a perfect description whether you're facing a terminal diagnoses or not.. Some battles we can never win, doesn't mean they can't be fought.

corner of hells

I can think the thread is ok , worth having a talk about.

I've a parent in the last week's or if we're lucky a couple of months of her life after fighting what to me could only described as the most ferocious battles over the last nine years.

She's been through it all , surgery , chemo or radiation whatever the **** treatment , all sorts of medication , invasive procedures , terrible pain and then the finality of it all , being told it's terminal but she still hasn't given up , I think that's the battle.

Junkyard Tom

What the hell are they supposed to use, man? Harsh language?

zoe 3619

Absolutely no one would see it like that, though.
You can battle against some cancers,others battle to make the most of the time they have.
It's a bit like suggesting you fail if you die,and surely that's coming to all of us at some point.

corner of hells

Your Face wrote: »

The OP is a ****.

No , I think you are.

Hammer89

corner of hells wrote: »

I can think the thread is ok , worth having a talk about.

I've a parent in the last week's or if we're lucky a couple of months of her life after fighting what to me could only described as the most ferocious battles over the last nine years.

She's been through it all , surgery , chemo or radiation whatever the **** treatment , all sorts of medication , invasive procedures , terrible pain and then the finality of it all , being told it's terminal but she still hasn't given up , I think that's the battle.

The 'battle' I'm referring to in regards to cancer is whether you survive or die from it. That's what I think is particularly poor.

Of course the physical, emotional and mental drawbacks of getting cancer could be considered a battle, and I can't even imagine them, but you could manage the illness like a solider and maintain a remarkably positive outlook throughout the treatment, and yet society would still consider you to have lost the battle if you die.

That's the f*cked up thing, and in my opinion, because that's all it is, it's not an appropriate word to use.

Hammer89

Hammer89 wrote: »

The 'battle' I'm referring to in regards to cancer is whether you survive or die from it. That's what I think is particularly poor.

Of course the physical, emotional and mental drawbacks of getting cancer could be considered a battle, and I can't even imagine them, but you could manage the illness like a solider and maintain a remarkably positive outlook throughout the treatment, and yet society would still consider you to have lost the battle if you die.

That's the f*cked up thing, and in my opinion, because that's all it is, it's not an appropriate word to use.

I kind of see your point, but you're fighting a losing battle here

jaxxx

Hammer89 wrote: »

The 'battle' I'm referring to in regards to cancer is whether you survive or die from it. That's what I think is particularly poor.

Of course the physical, emotional and mental drawbacks of getting cancer could be considered a battle, and I can't even imagine them, but you could manage the illness like a solider and maintain a remarkably positive outlook throughout the treatment, and yet society would still consider you to have lost the battle if you die.

That's the f*cked up thing, and in my opinion, because that's all it is, it's not an appropriate word to use.

I find that f*cking disgusting. Heaven forbid you or someone you cared about ever got cancer. Seeing what it puts you through, puts them through, physically, mentally, emotionally. Then come back to me and say it's not a f*cking battle. How f*cking dare you, and I say that as a survivor.

corner of hells

Hammer89 wrote: »

The 'battle' I'm referring to in regards to cancer is whether you survive or die from it. That's what I think is particularly poor.

Of course the physical, emotional and mental drawbacks of getting cancer could be considered a battle, and I can't even imagine them, but you could manage the illness like a solider and maintain a remarkably positive outlook throughout the treatment, and yet society would still consider you to have lost the battle if you die.

That's the f*cked up thing, and in my opinion, because that's all it is, it's not an appropriate word to use.

I get what you're saying.

Hammer89

jaxxx wrote: »

I find that f*cking disgusting. Heaven forbid you or someone you cared about ever got cancer. Seeing what it puts you through, puts them through, physically, mentally, emotionally. Then come back to me and say it's not a f*cking battle. How f*cking dare you, and I say that as a survivor.

Someone I care about does have cancer, which is what inspired the discussion.

And I didn't say the knock-on effects of cancer wasn't a battle - in fact I said 'of course it could be considered a battle' - but I think 'battle' is inappropriate word in terms of life or death.

I'm sincerely pleased that you're a survivor, but would you not find it a tad insulting if people considered you to have lost your battle if you passed away as a result of your cancer, even though you might have been a stunning example of how one should go about dealing with it?

Your Face

corner of hells wrote: »

No , I think you are.

oooh edgelord

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

It would astound me if anyone - stupid or otherwise - has ever thought or articulated that.

Unfortunately, whenever someone "loses the fight" the obvious implication could be that they simply didn't fight hard enough which could be seen as a personal failure on their part.

So for that reason alone it is a risky and a sloppy phrase to flippantly bestow upon those affected by cancer.

One probably created in good faith by a charity rather than the medical profession.

One eyed Jack

Some people relate to it, some people don't. I don't think it's either a positive or negative analogy, I just wouldn't use it myself.

Something similar are charity organisations anthropomorphising cancer as though it were human. Can't relate to the idea myself, but it seems to work for some people.

Victim/survivor paradigm is another one I can't relate to, but again - works for some people.

AllForIt

Well I do kinda get the OP's point. I think he is referring to advertising campaigns where they say stuff like "Let's beat cancer". Irritating advertising campaigns to raise money for cancer research. A good cause of course, not disputing that.

One can't 'battle' cancer or indeed 'beat' it, you can only deal with it. Why all the hyperbolic language.

Donald Trump

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Danny Baker had a good quote on this, after his treatment for cancer.

Don't know who Danny Baker is but he sounds like a gobshite




For a person to get up every day and struggle to put themselves through some horrific treatment, along with its side effects, knowing that it may or may not work, rather than just giving up is a fair fucking battle

muddypaws

Donald Trump wrote: »

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Danny Baker had a good quote on this, after his treatment for cancer.

Don't know who Danny Baker is but he sounds like a gobshite




For a person to get up every day and struggle to put themselves through some horrific treatment, along with its side effects, knowing that it may or may not work, rather than just giving up is a fair fucking battle

And if they decide not to go through the treatment, does that make them a coward?

That is why I don't like the word battle in this context. People deal with things in their own way and nobody else has the right to say they should do otherwise.

Donald Trump

muddypaws wrote: »

And if they decide not to go through the treatment, does that make them a coward?

That is why I don't like the word battle in this context. People deal with things in their own way and nobody else has the right to say they should do otherwise.

No, why would you say that?


You are posing a false dichotomy.


If you say someone is battling for doing something does not mean that others who don't do it are cowards


That's just silly talk

AllForIt

Donald Trump wrote: »

You are posing a false dichotomy.

You are not really Donald Trump. Donald Trump doesn't know what 'false' means.

Donald Trump

AllForIt wrote: »

You are not really Donald Trump. Donald Trump doesn't know what 'false' means.

Of course I do.


It's like a fancy word for fake



false news :pac:

Pugzilla

Cancer is just a group of mindless cells in your body that are growing out of control due to various genetic mutations. You can't battle them as they don't consider you an opponent.

Donald Trump

Pugzilla wrote: »

Cancer is just a group of mindless cells in your body that are growing out of control due to various genetic mutations. You can't battle them as they don't consider you an opponent.

Jesus Christ.


Words can have different meanings. Sometimes that is context based or sometimes they just the same word with two different means.

muddypaws

Donald Trump wrote: »

No, why would you say that?


You are posing a false dichotomy.


If you say someone is battling for doing something does not mean that others who don't do it are cowards


That's just silly talk

Danny Baker, cancer survivor is a gob****e. I have a different opinion to you, which is silly talk. Good user name

Pugzilla

Willpower doesn't kill cancer cells. Surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy does.

dense

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some people relate to it, some people don't. I don't think it's either a positive or negative analogy, I just wouldn't use it myself.

Something similar are charity organisations anthropomorphising cancer as though it were human. Can't relate to the idea myself, but it seems to work for some people.

Victim/survivor paradigm is another one I can't relate to, but again - works for some people.

I am of the same opinion.



Too many clichéd phrases conjured up by concerned others that read well, tablod style, with no obvious regard for the individuals concerned.



I would like to know how they feel being lumbered with the various catch phrases.

Donald Trump

Pugzilla wrote: »

Willpower doesn't kill cancer cells. Surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy does.

Unfortunately, more than likely you will see someone close to you struggle and battle against cancer.



When that day comes, don't tell them "ah sure look, you can't do anything. Quit yer moanin' - it's just a few drugs and some surgery that are doing thew work, not you. What are you complaining about. It's not as if you are getting in there and fighting one-on-one against the cancer"

dense

Donald Trump wrote: »

Jesus Christ.


Words can have different meanings. Sometimes that is context based or sometimes they just the same word with two different means.

That sounds like how a politician might attempt to reason their inconsistencies!

Words can have different meanings, but they usually don't contradict one another.

Donald Trump

dense wrote: »

That sounds like how a politician might attempt to reason their inconsistencies!

Words can have different meanings, but they usually don't contradict one another.

Apt username is apt


The word battle doesn't just mean running about with a sword and a shield

dictionary.com wrote:

verb

4. (when intr , often foll by against, for, or with) to fight in or as if in military combat; contend (with)she battled against cancer

5. to struggle in order to achieve something or arrive somewhere - he battled through the crowd

dense

Donald Trump wrote: »

Unfortunately, more than likely you will see someone close to you struggle and battle against cancer.



When that day comes, don't tell them "ah sure look, you can't do anything. Quit yer moanin' - it's just a few drugs and some surgery that are doing thew work, not you. What are you complaining about. It's not as if you are getting in there and fighting one-on-one against the cancer"

A lot would depend on whether the person likes being condescended to or not.

dense

Donald Trump wrote: »

Apt username is apt

Donald Trump is in da house

Donald Trump

dense wrote: »

A lot would depend on whether the person likes being condescended to or not.

Condescension?



It's ok.



You just don't understand the meaning of the word "battle".



Don't worry about it. Maybe someday you'll learn it.


:pac:

Hammer89

Donald Trump wrote: »

For a person to get up every day and struggle to put themselves through some horrific treatment, along with its side effects, knowing that it may or may not work, rather than just giving up is a fair fucking battle

Yet again, that's battling the management, and it's perfectly fine to refer to the physical and mental after-effects of cancer as a battle, but that's not we're talking about. When someone passes away from cancer it is very often noted that they lost their battle with the disease.

Donald Trump

Hammer89 wrote: »

Yet again, that's battling the management, and it's perfectly fine to refer to the physical and mental after-effects of cancer as a battle, but that's not we're talking about. When someone passes away from cancer it is very often noted that they lost their battle with the disease.

Jesus Christ again. I'll post it again



The word battle has more than one meaning.


Even look at this bit

Word Origin and History for battle
n.

c.1300, from Old French bataille "battle, single combat," also "inner turmoil, harsh circumstances; army, body of soldiers," from Late Latin battualia "exercise of soldiers and gladiators in fighting and fencing," from Latin battuere "to beat, to strike" (see batter (v.)). Phrase battle royal "fight involving several combatants" is from 1670s.

Hammer89

Thanks Donald I'm well aware that the word 'battle' doesn't always suggest a scene from Braveheart.

Nobody's debating that cancer, as far as treatment goes, can be a battle, but no c*nt is talking about that. We're talking about whether it's the right word to use in regards to cancer when it's life and death.

Donald Trump

Hammer89 wrote: »

Thanks Donald I'm well aware that the word 'battle' doesn't always suggest a scene from Braveheart.

Nobody's debating that cancer, as far as treatment goes, can be a battle, but no c*nt is talking about that. We're talking about whether it's the right word to use in regards to cancer when it's life and death.

If you want to debate on the linguistic merits of its use in a particular context or want to question the etymology of the phrase then I'm not going to get into that.




Take it up with those eejits over at the Oxford English Dictionary

OED wrote:

Struggle tenaciously to achieve or resist something. ‘he has been battling against the illness’