To cure or not to cure ... cancer.

[Sally]

Cakemaster, I'm glad you've only encountered compassionate nurses because this is exactly what I am.

You sure could have fooled me with your talk of "thinning the herd".

And Cakemaster isn't my name, it's Sally.

[Zerο]

Cancer isn't nature's way of doing anything. Cancer is uncontrolled abnormal cell growth, and that is it. 'Nature' doesn't have some grand strategy.

I find this 'Appeal to Nature' incoherent at best, generally quite absurd and - counter-intuitively - anthropocentric. (Also strangely common in industrialised and post-industrial (If such a thing even exists) nations).

'Nature' is poorly defined, and often arbitrarily excludes humans and human activities. There's no reason why murder and genocide should be less Nature's way of thinning the herd than cancer. They're both equally natural, caused by natural actors.

Similarly, there's no reason why industrialised society is less natural than hunter-gatherer society or agricultural society. For some reason we have this idea that pre-industrial societies were more at one with or in tune with nature than industrial ones, and there's no solid reason to think that. Firstly, even up until the late 19th century in Britain about three-quarters of the workforce would have been employed in Agriculture*. And this is Britain - the workshop of the world; about half the world's manufactured goods came from Britain during the mid- to late-19th century. Secondly, each is humanity exploiting its environment for it's own gain. The method might be different, but it's fundamentally the same principle. (I'm going to assume we're all knowledgeable enough to know about selective breeding in agriculture and livestock). Relatedly, it's often thought that, in particular, pre-Columbian societies throughout America lived, in some manner or another, in harmony with nature (Again, the societies themselves are implicitly excluded from the definition of nature for no given reason) which is a) False and b) Removes the agency of an entire continent's worth of people in their own history. Which is...odd†.

And again, human activity is weirdly excluded from what is and what is not natural. Or at least certain forms of it. I don't see how early humans' harnessing of fire to cook and keep warm is any more natural than modern humans' harnessing of nuclear energy to cook and keep warm. Or how Genetically Modified Organism (A ridiculous term - is there any organism that is not genetically modified?) is any different to said selective breeding. This is the counter-intuitive anthropocentrism I mentioned. 'Natural' still puts humanity in a special place, but through exclusion rather than inclusion.

I think it's also worth pointing out that 'Natural' has also been used to justify some odious ideologies, often from the bastardisation of Darwin's work to support eugenics and euthanasia, but also reprehensible treatment of the poor and unemployed, particularly during the Victorian period.

---

*I'm going to cite this, because no-one ever believes me: Chang, H.-J., 2014. Economics: The User's Guide. Pelican: London. pp.263-4.

†For more on this sort of thing, see Charles C. Mann's 1491: The Americas Before Columbus and Oscar Guardiola-Rivera's What if Latin America Ruled the World?.

Shrug, the views on it very - for me, it's where a balance in the ecosystem is achieved. You'd be hard pressed to argue that an industrialized society achieves balance with the environment, it shapes the environment to suit its needs.

Cancer isn't nature's way of doing anything. Cancer is uncontrolled abnormal cell growth, and that is it. 'Nature' doesn't have some grand strategy.

I find this 'Appeal to Nature' incoherent at best, generally quite absurd and - counter-intuitively - anthropocentric. (Also strangely common in industrialised and post-industrial (If such a thing even exists) nations).

Yeah, but it's an awfully convenient way for lazy people to excuse not doing anything.

If that's a slight aimed at me, I'm more than willing to compare our individual contributions to see whose lazy.

[Robin L]

I wonder why people blame the major pharma companies. Seems to me it's just a conspiracy theory, and an easy way to find someone to blame. Like, are we that sure they have a cure? There are multiple research teams working independently of the companies, and they haven't found a "cure". I put cure in quotes because there is no one cure that works for everything, and that seems to be what people are implying. See my other post.

[Sally]

I wonder why people blame the major pharma companies. Seems to me it's just a conspiracy theory, and an easy way to find someone to blame. Like, are we that sure they have a cure? There are multiple research teams working independently of the companies, and they haven't found a "cure". I put cure in quotes because there is no one cure that works for everything, and that seems to be what people are implying. See my other post.

It is indeed a conspiracy theory. That's not to say that Pharma and its members are not slimy and reprehensible in their profit-seeking, but they really aren't complicit in holding back "cures".

[Amoeba-Proteus]

I really wouldn't be surprised if Pharm's had a part there.

The world is heavily run by money. It wouldn't be anything shocking.

I'm not trying to find someone to blame for anything. Was just throwing the idea out there.

[ballerina]

Smile, Sally. You're alive.

[Sally]

Smile, Sally. You're alive.

But your "culling the herd" attitude would mean that it wouldn't be sad if I don't survive cancer, right?

Please let it lay -- you're new enough to not have read the threads when people have expressed dismay at being told to smile, especially by people who've made rather nasty remarks.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Cancer is what kills us if nothing else gets to us first.

To build on Naet's post, natural selection has no bearing on most cancers as most of them, especially the hereditary-influenced ones, strike long after an individual has passed the breeding period. Natural selection only affects an individual up until they've reproduced, then it acts on their children. If we don't develop heart disease, have strokes, or die from injury, we *will* get cancer. We get cancer a thousand times a day, but our repair systems catch it and clear it away. Three hundred and sixty-five days a year, for decades, there's no possible way our bodies can catch them all.

I was diagnosed with breast cancer nearly a year ago, and have spent the summer and fall and half of winter in treatment, starting with chemotherapy, going to surgery, then finishing up with radiation. I will be on estrogen blockers for the next five years. Should I be dead? Aren't I being culled from the herd?

[I'd rather be in band.]

I feel that it should be cured. Not all people who get cancer will have died five years later. Some of those people are normally-healthy and spry children who definitely deserve more of a chance at life. Besides, the research, as stated before, will open more doors.

Also, five years is still five years. Five more years with loved ones, or five more years to fulfill one's dreams, etc. Five years is an awfully long time to just throw away. It might not seem like much, but in reality, it is quite a long time.

Of course, others have valid arguments against this cure. If you believe that if you contract a terminal illness, you are meant to die, then that is what you do if you personally contract the illness. I might not understand because I've never been deathly ill, so excuse me if that offends anyone, but I really think that if that option is provided, many would opt to avoid getting a terminal illness. If you believe that nature takes its course - not personally my belief, but that's fine - then you could opt out.

Really, though, we don't know if they will be able to cure cancer in the near future. Either way, they're certainly not going to give up on it. Not only is it a lucrative industry, but many would have loved to have 5 more years with the loved ones that they have lost to cancer.

[ballerina]

Sally,

You were rude and condescending with your remarks to me. Look at your comment about patients you think I may have nursed - then take your own advice.

Now, I will let it lay.

[poisonrose]

I'd like to throw in my bit here.

1. I think that if your bothered about over population and population control then you should probably be taking up a debate about birth control and fertility treatments rather than cancer cures.

2. It is my belief that if a person has cancer then everything that is possible should be done to cure them.

3. However, I also believe that some of the money for cancer cures could be better spent on curing other non-terminal yet debilitating illnesses, it was described that terminal cancer often causes excruciating pain which even morphine can't touch right? Well there are several non-terminal illnesses which often result in the same but the person has to live with the fact that they will be this way until they die and that things will only get worse . Yet there is very little research being done on a lot of these illnesses because the money simply isn't there.

[Rising Sun]

In my country, the government doesn't spend much for research anyway. They don't care.

And in almost all countries, they forget malaria and other tropical diseases because if people are too poor to afford treatments, nothing will be done for them.

As for analgesics themselves, there is a problem when somebody just can't tolerate opioids' side effects even though there is a wide variety of opioids. There isn't much outside of opioid analgesics when pain requires something as strong as morphine, or stronger.

[StarryStarryNight]

I feel like half the time, it's not even a matter of investing time and money into finding cures anymore.

I personally believe that there are already a slew of known cures out there.

Then your belief is not a reality-based one, and so not worth considering.

[Sally]

And in almost all countries, they forget malaria and other tropical diseases because if people are too poor to afford treatments, nothing will be done for them.

The Gates Foundation, a US-based foundation, is spending millions on trying to prevent and cure malaria and other tropical diseases in Africa, plus up-to-date HIV treatments are being used in Africa (where the poorest countries in the world are located).

[Rising Sun]

If big laboratories worked on them, vaccines would exist for decades. And most African people can't afford HIV treatments.

[Sally]

If big laboratories worked on them, vaccines would exist for decades. And most African people can't afford HIV treatments.

Big laboratories did work on them and are working on vaccines for HIV. When I worked in a big academic/clinical laboratory 20 years ago, they were already working on them. It's a retrovirus; it's extremely difficult to work with.

Companies are donating HIV treatments to African countries.

[Rising Sun]

They don't work as much as they would if it weren't a tropical disease (and the number of people who benefit from medications against AIDS is a drop in the ocean). It's not as if I didn't know people working there. And it's the same problem with pediatric medications. On the contrary, they developed dozens, if not hundreds of useless "anti-cold" medications that don't even work, shouldn't be prescribed but which cause serious public debt problems, at least in Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those persons who are against the pharmaceutical industry, on the contrary... But there are some very important priorities which seem to be viewed as secondary.

[AlexPeyton]

I think it should be cured, will be possible to be cured and everyone should be allowed to have the treatment. That being said, it would be so expensive it wouldn't be used generally and only rich people/people of global importance will get it.

I live in the UK where all healthcare is free at the taxpayers expense and here, currently 1 in 2 people will die of cancer because ultimately we are living longer and cancer mainly affects you as you get older. There's a general feeling here that the elderly are mistreated and the government believe they are a 'burden on the state' as we have an ageing population - therefore if there was a cure, there's practically no chance it would be given on a mass scale at the taxpayers expense. It would cost so much money the entire country would probably suffer.

Private treatment is a different case, but there again only wealthy people can afford it. So yeah, I think only the 1% will get access to it.

Back to my other point, I recently lost my grandma to cancer which took everyone by surprise as she was 75 and in extremely great shape. From when she first shown symptoms she only lasted a week - The hospital didn't even try with her, they just underfed her, mistreated her and let her die. I feel thats the same for many old cancer patients here. My grandad died from it too.

Unfortunatley I think a lot of people accept the disease as 'natural' particulary in older people - I personally think extending someones life and wellbeing is extremley crucial. We need a cure because personally I believe my grandma had atleast another 10 years in her. It's absolutley tore our entire family apart. We would give anything to have even another few months of her back. I'm sure many people affected by loved ones with cancer will understand.

[DannyXIV]

The personal endeavors of each human being is entirely up to them, if someone wanted to research and cure cancer they're entirely within their power to do so.