More pinkness: the downside of "awareness" campaigns

So I'm having a discussion with Rita over on cruxifusion.com.

She presented an article about BCAM (breast cancer awareness month) and how it has been funded by companies that produce carcinogenic products. Susan B Komen has been in trouble for this.

This is the article: Covering Up The Causes of Breast Cancer I'm including it for discussion purposes. It makes quite a few good points. I don't agree with it all. It does give food for thought.


I also found this article: The Trouble With Pinkwashing

Simply put, all the pink messaging we see about breast cancer undermines how complex and devastating the disease actually is.

There's a lot of pressure to put more research into prevention rather than to support the drug companies' alleged desire to keep cancer around so they can make money. Sure, that seems to be the case some days. Prevention and early detection are important. That being said, I've met women who have lived extremely healthy lives and have breast cancer. I've also met women on the other end of the fitness spectrum. Getting cancer seems to be a big crap shoot. Is that partly due to the carcinogens around us over which we have little control?

It isn't a simple issue. The fact is there will always be people with cancer in our lifetimes. We need good treatment. I'm stable and doing well because of pharmaceuticals.

The pink campaign simplifies and glamourizes breast cancer. It makes it seem like no big deal. It is a big deal. We are aware. Lets now do something about it.

 

[Mendalla]

I noticed that the early detection discussion is starting up again. After what I saw with singer Floor Jansen, who came through with flying colours at least partly because Sweden starts routine screening at 40 instead of 50 (she's 42), I really think that's the sort of discussion we need to be having. Same with my brother's prostate getting picked up in his forties instead of his sixties or seventies. Early detection and treatment might do more good than chasing after every little thing that causes cancer in lab nice trying to prevent it.

 

[Northwind]

There is a push here to get screening to start at 40. I've met women online who had to fight to get screened in spite of having good reasons to do so. There should never be a fight to get cancer screening when there's any whiff of concern.

 

[KayTheCurler]

I was told that I no longer needed regular mammograms as I was too old to be likely to get breast cancer. I think that was a age 70, but I just filed the info away and ceased being concerned. A few weeks ago my family doctor told me (now 78) to go get a mammogram - I am still at risk!
Actually, I agree with testing for those cancers where it is feasible. However, overall my observations indicate that it is a bit of a crap shoot.

We just don't know enough to make reliable predictions of who will likely get it, or where it will strike.

One thing I'm convinced of though, is that buying cupcakes with pink icing is useless!

 

[Mendalla]

There should never be a fight to get cancer screening when there's any whiff of concern.

Indeed. My doctor wasted no time writing an order for a PSA once I told him about my brother's diagnosis.

 

[JayneWonders]

Sadly some folks don't understand correlation and causation

The increased spends , new drugs to keep people living well is good.

Did cancer exist before drug companies and medical equipment manufacturers started to find treatments. Yes. There is a reason we still shudder at the word cancer. In my lifetime, it was a death sentence .

Thankfully, it is now fewer cancers that give that response, such as pancreatic cancer