Is There Too Much Coverage In The Media About Cancer To The Detriment Of Other Equally Serious Illnesses?

[dave50]

It seems to be that cancer is the only thing that counts.

[barry1010]

Diabetes seems to hit the headlines, too - especially Type 2.

Also dementia.  

I think cancer gets promoted so much because early detection can make all the difference - it can be the difference between life and death.  

[rowanwitch]

When I did the care of the dying course I felt I was a voice in the wilderness,  it was almost totally based around cancer care, the hospice movement and macmillan.... We did have one session on MND, but with so many more people dying of heart disease, airways disease, strokes, kidney failure and liver disease it was really difficult.   It seemed very much that  most of the other conditions were somehow thought of as diseases that were the sufferers fault.   

The hospice staff were very clear that they only took cancer ,and rarely MND/MS patients.   I suspect the fear of cancer drives the success of cancer charities, and and the hospice movement, and historically  poor people rarely lived long enough to die of cancer in the huge numbers we see today, succumbing to work related conditions, and the diseases of poverty and poor living conditions, as well as childbirth, and infections.  The middle classes  lived longer, were more afraid of the big C.  They supported the charities, almost as a subconscious insurance policy.

[DTCwordfan]

there's a fair amount on dementia, mainly Alzheimer's but, fair enough, it counts for about 65 percent of dementias, of which there are ten main ones and four hundred in total.

[wolf63]

I watched a yt video by a doctor.

He said that screening detects cancer earlier.  It may give you a few more years due to treatment.  The treatment can be unpleasant.

If you don't go for screening then the cancer is detected later.  You will not live so long with the knowledge that you have cancer.

But in both cases you may actually die at the same age.

 

That makes sense in my head, not sure if it makes sense to you.

 

[Countrylover]

I agree.  That's why I don't give to cancer charitys  The fact is now many people recover from cancer and there are a lot of rarer conditions which have no cure or even much help.  The charities can't afford to advertise.  As a sufferer of a chronic condition that is very painful and disabled me I feel very strongly about all the emphasis on cancer.  I am not alone!

[rowanwitch]

Some cancer treatments offer a significant life extension over the no treatment option,  however there can be a major impact on quality of life with some of the treatments but there are much better management options  for side effects.

[237SJ]

I just wish that more time would be spent on trying to find out why more and more people are getting cancer in the first place.  It angers me when the powers that be say it's lifestyle factors, as if it the the cancer sufferer's fault.  Something is causing the massive increase in cancers and environmental factors must come into play but that is hardly ever addressed.

[rowanwitch]

One of the biggest reasons is simply people are not dying of other things.  Pneumonia  used to take so many, but now antibiotics make it an almost totally treatable condition, TB,  and even things like heart failure and chronic airways diseases treatable to the point at which something close to the average life span is achievable so even with co morbidities people can get cancer and die from that.  

However the links between certain goods and cancer are becoming harder to argue against, especially the effects of nitrite in bacon and ham especially, and the  connection between  HPV  multiple sexual partners, and cervical cancer.

Of course the increased diagnoses from screening means a number of deaths are recorded as 'with cancer'  rather than from cancer.