Cancer funding

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Yes, I'm putting in here a debate about cancer funding. And I know a lot of people are going to be ticked off at me. But you know what? The vast majority of the debates on here are pretty one-sided, agreeing with me. For me, that's not a debate--it's me listing some information and a lot of people agreeing with me, and vice versa.

 

So right now, I'm putting in something that I know I'm going to get heck for. I've been called horrible things for saying the things I say. But please, bear with me and actually read my reasons for saying what I say.

 

All right, here go the questions:

 

1) Should cancer get ANY funding at all from the government? I know there are some libertarians out there...putting this one in just to see if anyone thinks it shouldn't.

2) Does cancer get TOO MUCH funding from the government I'll post statistics below so you can compare.

3) Does cancer get too much awareness? Interpret this question however you see fit. Talk about facebook statuses, a variety of funding marathons, shaving your head for cancer awareness, etc. Whatever you want to talk about.

And lastly...4) How much IS too much awareness and funding?

 

Statistics:

Amount of federal funding for cancer research

More facts about cancer

 

My statistics are for the United States, just so you know.

 

*39 billion dollars went to cancer research this year, JUST from federal spending. That doesn't include the private foundations at all, and there are too many to count. I also don't know if perhaps the private foundations go straight to the federal spending, so that's another reason for me not to add it in.

*571,950 people are estimated to die from cancer this year.

*1,596,670 people are estimated to be diagnosed with cancer this year.

*That's $68,187 for every person who dies from cancer.

*That's $24,425 for every person diagnosed with cancer.

 

Compare to ALS, a fairly well-known disease better known as Lou Gehrig's disease. Stephen Hawking has it, and he is one of very few people who has lived over ten years with it. In fact, half of people diagnosed with ALS die within three years, and well over half die within five years. Nobody has ever stopped having symptoms from it--they continue to be in wheelchairs, continue to be unmoving. Those who live have a pretty terrible existence.

 

Statistics on funding--it's hard to find, since it doesn't get very much attention, but I dug this up a little while ago:

*$60 million a year in funding for people with ALS. That's AFTER a huge increase in funding--it was $15 million not that long ago.

*Over 5000 people die from ALS each year.

*5600 people are diagnosed with ALS each year. (...And look how many of those die from it...the ones who don't are hit by cars, or die of old age when they developed ALS fairly old.)

*That's $12,000 per person who dies from ALS.

*That's $10,714 per person diagnosed with ALS.

 

 

 

*******

So, in the end, my beliefs:

1) Cancer gets a disproportionate amount of funding. Yes, I understand that since it's far more common, it should get more funding. But I did these statistics PER PERSON. Per person diagnosed AND per person dies. Per person who dies, it gets nearly seven times as much funding as ALS. This is despite the fact that ALS is genuinely a worse disease than cancer. And yes, I can say that--and the only people who would disagree are people who have NEVER seen someone with ALS.

 

I have.

 

I have seen someone dying of ALS. Cancer is NOTHING in comparison.

 

2) Cancer gets so much awareness that it has genuinely gotten annoying. The next time I see one of those facebook statuses that tells you "You're a horrible person who doesn't care about people with diseases if you don't repost this!" but is only about cancer awareness, I'm posting a list of other diseases and forcing that person to look it up. EVERYONE is aware of cancer. It sucks. A lot. It's a terrible disease. But it is NOT THE ONLY ONE. When was the last time you saw awareness about anything besides cancer and autism? I posted a link about a huge breakthrough in ALS research, and nobody even commented or reposted or CARED.

 

 

For the record, I have never had cancer, and my own disability isn't as bad as it. (Which is why my disability got one grant for $4.5 million back in 1999 and never got anything since. It kills people, but not nearly as many people as cancer does.) However, I have several relatives who have had it, and while they don't necessarily think that cancer gets *too* much funding, they do agree that other diseases need more funding and FAR more awareness.

 

All right, let the hate mail begin!

[Spritzie]

First, I'll throw it out there, my family has been personally affected by cancer. My grandma (my mom's mom) was diagnosed with the pink ribbon type of cancer (since we have filters on here) when my mom was pregnant with me. She was given 6 months to live, underwent surgery and chemo. She passed away in 2008, when I was 23. In early 2008, she was diagnosed with bone cancer. (They decided that the cancer never actually went away like they thought it did, and it was basically hiding in her body for over 20 years, and resurfaced as bone cancer.)

 

Now for the questions:

 

1) Should cancer get ANY funding at all from the government?

I will go with yes, though it gets tricky with, if cancer gets funding, how can we afford to give all the other causes/illnesses funding. And if everything else doesn't get it, what criteria is there for deeming what causes/illnesses get it, versus those that don't, which I honestly don't have answers for.

 

2) Does cancer get TOO MUCH funding from the government?

Looking at the numbers you posted, the first numbers seem large, but then again broken down, it doesn't seem quite as much per person. Cancer can be extremely costly to fight, varying on the types, the stages, what actions are taken. My mom's best friend had 3 types of cancer, pink ribbon, bone, and a tumor on her eye. She lived, and fought those cancers for about 8 years. I can't even imagine the costs for her treatments over those 8 years. I think funding should be proportionate to the number of people diagnosed and dealing with it. I think that goes with all illnesses.

 

3) Does cancer get too much awareness?

No. I don't think any cause could ever get too much awareness, though many get not enough. Sometimes, it can be over-whelming especially when people seem to be very, in your face, like with the Facebook status messages you mentioned. Personally, I've been had a close family member with cancer. I appreciate the awareness and lengths many go to for awareness, to help with a cure. My family is more quiet about it. My sister cut her extremely long hair to donate to Locks of Love as a gift for a friend who lost a daughter to cancer, but most people don't realize why she did it.

 

But overall, I don't think that cancer gets too much awareness, but that tons of other causes don't get enough, which makes cancer seem like it's getting too much.

 

4) How much IS too much awareness and funding?

And to sum up, like I did at the end of the last too questions. There is no such thing, in my mind, as too much awareness. As for too much funding, I think the costs of treatment, the number of people affected with the illness, and things like that, should factor into the question of funding. Without knowing the costs of treatment, how long it continues, what's required due to the stage or severity of the cancer, it's hard to say without severely generalizing.

[Piticent]

OK, first, I'm gonna state that (1) there is nothing wrong with creating this topic, and (2) you shouldnt consider this hate mail, and I CAN'T believe people say bad things for you saying what you are saying. Now, to answer the questions:

 

1) Should cancer get ANY funding at all from the government?

Well, I think it should get some funding. Not giving it any is a wee bit too extreme...

 

2) Does cancer get TOO MUCH funding from the government

In my opinion, yes, it does. I know cancer is a major issue and that needs funding, and it's a great cause to support, but to an extent, the government is just giving money to a hopeless cause. Don't think I think cancer isn't worthy of funding, or that the government is throwing money down the drain. It is a very worthy cause. HOWEVER, unless I haven't gotten the memo, cancer is currently uncurable. Yes, the money is going towards support to find a cure, however, there are many other causes to put money in for, such as war, poverty, police/fire, and production of cures that do exist. Also, as I will probobly expand upon below, there are already so many existing suport groups out there, they almost don't need the government.

 

3) Does cancer get too much awareness?

No. I don't think there's too much awareness. Again, there are so many hospitals, support groups, families of victims, and small town governments that are currently supporting then cause that I don't think the federal government should step in. It DOES NOT get too much awareness.

 

4) How much IS too much awareness and funding?

How much is too much? It will never reach too much until we're focusing so much on cancer that we're ignoring every other problem.

 

My last words are that although I think federal gov. funds too much, I think they should organize one group of people finding a cure for one cancer at a time. I think there are too many groups spread out. There arent too many groups, but they are too spread out in location and goals...

[April]

I feel for people that get cancer or those that have to watch a loved one go through it.

Personally, while I don't think there is ever too much awareness I feel there should be more awareness on other issues.

Other illnesses, abuse, and stuff like that.

 

All I see are Pink ribbon Cancer things. That's fine but people get affected by more than pink ribbon Cancer, (maybe this is just here) but I feel that focusing on just pink ribbon Cancer. I don't agree with.

(I was really wondering why it said Hissi, I thought I made a typo. I get it now. A filter. XD)

 

I don't think, like I said, that anything can have too much awareness. I just wish that we would focus on other things. Like stuff happening across the world. Children being orphaned because their parents are dying from diseases, not being able to get water.

 

I know people are going to say we spend lots of awareness and time on those and I have even heard, it's not our Country, so it does not affect us.

 

Call me sensitive or sentimental but I am just the type of person that feels terrible about that. I know I didn't answer the questions but I don't know how I feel about funding.

 

I'm not supposed to live past the age of 20 and it's not from Cancer, but I can see the Cancer side of the argument due to the fear that creates.

 

I feel for the third time that I guess there can't be too much awareness and on that note, funding, but I feel other issues should get just as much attention.

 

I fully agree Karina, that everyone knows about cancer.

I feel people should be made aware of like you said ALS and other diseases.

But I also feel, even though they are not diseases that there should be more awareness for other issues. Like I said abuse, homeless, starving, ect.

And do not tell me someone being abused should know to leave. Honestly, in that situation there are many reasons they don't.

 

That's just my two cents.

[Russ]

I'm not gonna get into the funding debate but I think it's incredibly stupid how much "awareness" crap there is. Like, coloring tons of stuff pink or whatever is fun and all, but it makes literally no impact on anything ever. People should put the money that goes towards stupid "awareness" things towards practical things like finding a cure.

[April]

I'm not gonna get into the funding debate but I think it's incredibly stupid how much "awareness" crap there is. Like, coloring tons of stuff pink or whatever is fun and all, but it makes literally no impact on anything ever. People should put the money that goes towards stupid "awareness" things towards practical things like finding a cure.

 

I always seem to find myself agreeing with you.

Most of this awareness stuff doesn't even fund. Sure there is the odd one that asks for donations but that's it.

Is there really a point in posting up ribbons everywhere?

People are already aware of Cancer.

I can see maybe bringing awareness to some disease no one knows about. But Cancer?

It just seems pointless.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

2) Does cancer get TOO MUCH funding from the government?

Looking at the numbers you posted, the first numbers seem large, but then again broken down, it doesn't seem quite as much per person. Cancer can be extremely costly to fight, varying on the types, the stages, what actions are taken. My mom's best friend had 3 types of cancer, pink ribbon, bone, and a tumor on her eye. She lived, and fought those cancers for about 8 years. I can't even imagine the costs for her treatments over those 8 years. I think funding should be proportionate to the number of people diagnosed and dealing with it. I think that goes with all illnesses.

 

Just pointing out--what I quoted is just the money for research alone. The amount going to help individual cancer patients is mostly funded by private organizations in addition to insurance. Also, again, it is WAY more expensive to take care of ALS patients--the first two years they have to be in expensive wheelchairs that they cannot wheel themselves, and then they need equipment just to breathe, and they need specialized hospital beds because they can't lie down because their chests will cave in...

 

So if the funding is proportionate, ALS still should get at least three times as much funding.

[Yuika]

Well...as my professional goal is oncology nursing, this is interesting to me. I admittedly don't know enough about this yet, though, so my apologies if I sound ignorant.

 

1) Should cancer get ANY funding at all from the government?

Well, I'm one of those libertarians of which you speak. Haha. You bring up a very good point that there are countless large foundations that fund cancer research as it is.

 

2) Does cancer get TOO MUCH funding from the government I'll post statistics below so you can compare.

Yes, proportionately. Your statistics speak volumes--any rational person should agree with you.

 

3) Does cancer get too much awareness? Interpret this question however you see fit. Talk about facebook statuses, a variety of funding marathons, shaving your head for cancer awareness, etc. Whatever you want to talk about.

I personally don't think it's possible for a political or health issue to have to much awareness. However, having said that, I also personally believe that hissi cancer in particular gets a disproportionate amount of attention when you think about how many people die from it compared to other forms of cancer. I have indeed had people close to me affected with hissi cancer, so please don't assume that's why I feel that way. I also have had family members afflicted with various other types of cancer, such as melanoma, which I believe deserves more attention than it gets--considering that it is in many cases preventable to a point. Also, as people above me have said, wearing a pink hat does not help with cancer research. Thought I'm not going to lie, I've bought hissi cancer awareness swag before because I like pink... and why not buy a pink pen that is 50% to 100% donated over a boring black pen that's the same price? Just an example.

 

And lastly...4) How much IS too much awareness and funding?

That's a difficult question. I think question 2 is very similar. Basically, if it's disproportionate to similar funding, I think it's too much.

[Emily]

1) Should cancer get ANY funding at all from the government?

I have to go with yes here. It should receive funding. But so should other diseases too. we need to "share the wealth" so to speak

 

 

2) Does cancer get TOO MUCH funding from the government?

I don't know. That's like asking if too much of a good thing can kill you. From the numbers that were posted above, it does seem like an awful lot. I think I'm going to say yes here just because there are other diseases that receive little to no government funding. Just because they affect less people, doesn't mean they are any less dangerous. But if you start cutting back everywhere, trying to make things even, there my be too little given to any one thing to actually make a difference. I think they need to look into diseases that don't get as much funding from private sources and start there.

 

3) Does cancer get too much awareness?

I don't think awareness is a bad thing. But that's just it. It's awareness. Awareness, as others have said, does not cure. Research cures. Fine. People are aware of it. But me knowing about it doesn't mean I can stop it. People can be as aware as they want, but if they aren't willing to sacrifice time and expertise (if they have it [research]) or money (to fund the research), it doesn't really make much of a difference, in my opinion. Like a benefit concert. Charge for tickets. Then people are aware of it AND there's money going towards a good thing. Do a walk for cancer and require pledges to enter. You raise awareness and fund research. In my opinion, awareness alone is useless.

 

 

4) How much IS too much awareness and funding?

 

Too much awareness is when people think they're making a difference just by having that knowledge. You're not helping. I know cancer affects millions of people per year. However, I'm not a doctor or a chemist. I can't fix it. It does me no good to know about it. I know I'm not making a difference until I give money to fund the time of someone who actually CAN fix it.

 

As far as funding goes here, I'm going to assume you mean government and private funding combined?

 

As far as private funding, you can never have too much. If people want to donate their own money, especially people that have it to spare, great for them. I'm not rich by any means, but every time I go into the grocery store, book store, or buy something on ebay, I always donate if they ask. It's never more than 2$ and I feel that if I can spend 20$ on a book, or $100 on groceries, I can spend a dollar or two to help.

 

In regards to government funding, i think it should depend on private funding and then calculated. If, using the examples you provided, Cancer gets $400 million in private funding and ALS only gets $300k (these are not real figures, just a hypothetical), then instead of the government giving say, another $500 mil to cancer funding and only another $10 mil to ALS, it should give perhaps $370 mil to Cancer and $130 mil to ALS. I still feel like cancer should receive more because of the exponentially larger number of people who are affected by cancer, but there shouldn't be such a large discrepancy.

[Russ]

I always seem to find myself agreeing with you.

Most of this awareness stuff doesn't even fund. Sure there is the odd one that asks for donations but that's it.

Is there really a point in posting up ribbons everywhere?

People are already aware of Cancer.

I can see maybe bringing awareness to some disease no one knows about. But Cancer?

It just seems pointless.

 

Agreed. Everyone knows cancer exists. Putting pink ribbons all over everything is fine and dandy but it doesn't get us any closer to saving lives. Awareness is good but it's a pointless waste of time to try and raise awareness for something that pretty much everyone already knows exists. It's just a way for people to feel better about themselves and companies exploit it to make money off of special "pink" versions of whatever they ordinarily sell. (Since hissi cancer is probably the one that gets the most awareness.. i've never seen anyone talk about pancreatic cancer awareness or anything. I wonder why that is.)

[April]

Agreed. Everyone knows cancer exists. Putting pink ribbons all over everything is fine and dandy but it doesn't get us any closer to saving lives. Awareness is good but it's a pointless waste of time to try and raise awareness for something that pretty much everyone already knows exists. It's just a way for people to feel better about themselves and companies exploit it to make money off of special "pink" versions of whatever they ordinarily sell. (Since hissi cancer is probably the one that gets the most awareness.. i've never seen anyone talk about pancreatic cancer awareness or anything. I wonder why that is.)

 

Exactly. Instead of posting cancer all over FB.

 

How about you post something I am NOT aware of?

I honestly had no idea ALS existed until this thread. I wish I'd known now.

[Piticent]

Well, this post has nothing to do with the topic at hand at all regarding the questions, but I would like to point out that (1) this month is Pink Ribbon Cancer Awareness Month, and that (2) it inspired me to draw this (which you will find with the rest of the things I drew in the graphics section under 'Piticent's Graphic Stand' ;)):

 

 

Hope everybody is aware ^_^

[PinkSky777]

I'll be in the minority here, but it's sickening how much money is spent on treatments that, for the most part, do more harm than good. The standard way we treat cancer in the U.S.A is not how it should be handled, and that goes for just about all other illnesses as well. Instead of getting to the root cause, most doctors today want to hand out "band aids" that contain side-effects that only worsen the problem. Nutrition? What's that?? Western medicine, except for emergencies, is for the most part, in the dark ages, but... there's a lot of money to be made with Western medicine, and that's why it's continued. So, no, because that money goes to improperly treating cancer (yes, some are healed, but it doesn't make it the right treatment), and because I don't respect most of what modern medicine has to offer, I don't believe our government should be giving money to modern research on cancer. It's all quite sad. :(

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I don't believe people should start cutting off funding to research simply because they have not personally been affected by the disease. I agree with the previous poster, cutting some funding may in fact hinder the rate at which they do find a cure, if they're able to. Cutting funding to cancer does not automatically mean another disease will get that money for research. Giving another fund that money does not mean that they will definitely find a cure faster. I also don't believe there's such a thing as too much awareness or too much funding. There're still people who are unaware about HIV/AIDS and that's a really popular one right there! Definitely there should be groups championing the lesser known diseases, but that's no reason to try to diminish the effects of another deadly disease.

 

I agree that people shouldn't cut off funding to research because they haven't been personally affected. Unfortunately, that's the EXACT reason why cancer gets so much funding and nobody else gets anything: because everyone has a family member or a friend or someone who has gotten cancer. Some of them have died; more than half have lived. Whereas because of the lack of research in other diseases, many people don't even get diagnosed with the right thing, and so their treatment plan ends up COMPLETELY WRONG. If one million dollars went to each of those diseases each year--or even one million to a group of related diseases--many, many lives would be saved. Doctors constantly misdiagnose because of lack of research.

 

Here's the thing: people don't really understand what a "cure" is. There is already in place a treatment for cancer that does actually help destroy the cancer in many, many cases--about two thirds. (And considering how many people get cancer when they are old enough to be far gone, that's a fairly good percentage.) It's a horrible treatment, often worse than the disease itself. But it is effective in many cases. Some would call it a cure. Others, however, want something that will work 100% of the time and speedily. Guess what? We don't have that for the common cold. We don't have that for a lot of diseases because they aren't possible based on the nature of the disease itself. The closest we can get is an immunization-style treatment.

 

In cases like ALS, though, there isn't even treatment. There is NO way to get rid of the disease once you have it. It is a death sentence 99.9% of the time, and if it's not, you're left completely paralyzed. (See Stephen Hawking, who has lived with the disease for decades longer than anyone else.) However, even with their meager funding--cancer gets 650 times as much just from the government--the medical research HAS done something. They recently found a link between the three types of ALS, and that is a path to finding the underlying cause and therefore a treatment that will work.

 

Just think: if the government gave just 1 billion dollars to ALS funding instead of to cancer each year, there may have already been treatment found. That would be more than 16 times what ALS currently gets, and it would be a mere 2.5% of what cancer currently gets. That would barely make a dent in cancer research at all and would not change the lives of cancer patients whatsoever, but it would COMPLETELY change other lives. Nothing would be hindered whatsoever.

 

Also, I would just like to remind people that my family HAS been affected by cancer: four close relatives. One of them had three forms at the same time. She was awesome about it before she passed, though. I feel like some people are saying I'm underestimating cancer because I haven't seen it. No, I have been by death beds of cancer patients of a variety of types: pink ribbon, liver, leukemia, lung, and pancreatic. But the death beds are when it is supposed to be the worst--and the woman I know with ALS has had very similar pain for more than two years, and it is getting worse. I think people reading this have forgotten that I am judging the diseases based on real life experiences that I have seen too much of.

 

Aaand I just went in for a physical, and due to the results from a test, I get to go in for leukemia screening! Go me! (I'm not concerned. I think my AS would DESTROY cancerous cells.)

[Unstream]

I don't really care about funding all that much, but I'm going to talk about awareness.

 

I'm sick of how much awareness cancer gets. I mean, come on, everybody knows about it; there's no need for more awareness.

 

I think the reason why we emphasize cancer so much is it's because it's what scares us the most. Almost everyone seems susceptible to cancer, and it's hard to cure. And it's probably what affects us most here as a developed nation.

 

However, I think that's a rather narrow viewpoint. In 2008, there were roughly 1,437,180 new cases of cancer in the U.S.[source].

 

What about some other diseases? [source]

WHO statistics estimated 247 million new cases of malaria in 2008 (about 170x more than cancer), a disease which is also responsible for 20% of childhood deaths in Africa.

 

And what about Pneumonia? It kills more children than any other disease in the world, with a death toll of 1.8 million, which is 400,000 more than the diagnosed cases of cancer in America.

 

And there's Tuberculosis, having claimed 1.3 million lives in 2008. The crazy thing is, only 5% to 10% of people with that disease get sick from it. That means easily 13 million people are infected with TB, and the worst part is, it spreads like crazy.

 

My question is, why do we have so much awareness about cancer, when malaria, pneumonia, and TB are so much worse for humanity in general?

I think it's because we as developed countries only really care about ourselves.

 

Malaria/pneumonia/TB awareness FTW!

[Welcome Back Apathy]

 

I don't agree with these needing awareness. They are not silent killers. They make you really sick, and really sick people SHOULD be going to the doctor. And going to the doctor will result in you being diagnosed and subsequently cured, because they ARE curable.

 

Tuberculosis is a silent killer. Or at least, you may have the infection without the disease, and you may spread it to others, and then later you may develop the disease. Honestly, tuberculosis needs more awareness because the sickness IS preventable, but so few people know how.

 

Also, you just said that you can protect yourself against malaria by a number of things...but you can't protect yourself if you're not aware! So it really DOES require awareness.

[Unstream]

I was actually talking about awareness here, in places like America, not in places where those diseases are prominent.

 

I think we should be aware that malaria, pneumonia, and TB are wreaking much more havoc in this world than cancer is, and the worst part is that we're all sitting on top of the cure, but not giving it to those who need it just because 1) we either don't really care because it doesn't really affect us or 2) we don't know about it. I'm hoping that humanity as a whole is intrinsically good, so I'm hoping the reason is the second one.

 

I guess speaking of funding, we really should be working harder to help developing countries with these diseases. It's wrong to have the cure but not help them because they can't pay for it.

[Piticent]

Tuberculosis is a silent killer. Or at least, you may have the infection without the disease, and you may spread it to others, and then later you may develop the disease. Honestly, tuberculosis needs more awareness because the sickness IS preventable, but so few people know how.

 

Also, you just said that you can protect yourself against malaria by a number of things...but you can't protect yourself if you're not aware! So it really DOES require awareness.

 

That being said, you're talking about malaria and others...I totally agree with you! I mean, a speaker just came in 2 days ago to raise awareness in my school about melenoma. However, when you talk about awareness, just know: I think Hissi Cancer gets too much awareness. it's the only cancer som people think exist :P