# cancer



## Joca

There is clearly a prejudice against certain words. One of them is cancer. I think many fear to say this very word because they think that by saying it they are in a way summoning the very disease. So they will resort to sentences like this: "Oh, she is dying from THAT disease." "You know, the awful disease has killed him." Does this also happen in your area? I am not sure, but I think this is a kind of euphemism. Do we really need it?


----------



## cuchuflete

The word cancer is used widely in the US.  There is no prohibition or stigma.  It's a dangerous disease. Period.


----------



## ElaineG

In the U.S., we don't have this issue, but where I lived in Sicily, it was still very much a new thing to say out loud that you had cancer, knew someone who died of cancer, etc.  Young people would talk about it openly, but not older people  In fact, I read that treatment and prevention were very much problematized in Italy by the reluctance to talk about the subject!

I never really got at the heart of the prohibition - superstition? stigma?  I'm interested to learn more about it.


----------



## federicoft

ElaineG said:


> In the U.S., we don't have this issue, but where I lived in Sicily, it was still very much a new thing to say out loud that you had cancer, knew someone who died of cancer, etc.  Young people would talk about it openly, but not older people



This is true, until few years ago in Italy people referred to cancer as _un male incurabile _- an incurable disease. This was the only socially acceptable term when talking about someone who died of cancer.
Although there is still a sort of fear between older people of say out loud the word cancer, luckily now we know cancer isn't incurable.


----------



## panjandrum

It is not prejudice. It is simply fear.
The word cancer invokes another word, death.
That is difficult for people to cope with.

In my part of the world, it is not hard to talk about cancer in the third person - he has cancer, she had cancer, his father died of cancer, her mother has cancer.

First or second person cancer is still something of a conversation-stopper. There is still the presumption that cancer=death, and the natural response is cancer=death=fear.

(I suppose that there is less of a distance between prejudice and fear than I implied above.)


----------



## .   1

I don't like the word.  Cancer is an ugly word with unfortunate implications but it is far better to call a spade a spade.
The Big C and other euphemisms only draw attention.
F**k stands out much more than the simple Germanic gutteral.

Cancer is just another way to die but it is also another hurdle to be passed for life.

.,,


----------



## KateNicole

That's interesting.  I never knew that cancer was "taboo" in certain areas!  It's especially interesting to me because (aside from skin and lung cancer) people don't have all that much control over getting it.  I don't mean to be offensive by any means, but I could see where a sexually transmitted disease like AIDS could carry some sort of a stigma (not that I support that), but not cancer . . .


----------



## Joca

KateNicole said:


> That's interesting. I never knew that cancer was "taboo" in certain areas! It's especially interesting to me because (aside from skin and lung cancer) people don't have all that much control over getting it. I don't mean to be offensive by any means, but I could see where a sexually transmitted disease like AIDS could carry some sort of a stigma (not that I support that), but not cancer . . .


 
And wasn't AIDS in the beginning called the gay cancer?

And I agree with .., above: cancer is an ugly word, I mean, a very negative one. You often use it to describe something very evil in society.

JC


----------



## Lugubert

In Sweden, I see no problem in using "cancer". In my youth, the literal translation of the crustacean name, "kräfta", was common. It might be that the switch to the almost exclusively used international name was to avoid any negative connotations during the August crayfish parties.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

In many parts of North America people used to believe that cancer was indeed sexually transmitted, or at the very least the fruit of an immoral lifestyle.  It wasn't a disease to be openly discussed.


----------



## maxiogee

My maternal grandmother had eight children. They had, between them, 32 children who survived past infancy.

All of my grandmother's children contracted cancer in one form or another. Each of their deaths was directly related to their cancer, or one of its attendant complaints/problems.
Several of the next generation have already contracted it.
Despite all this we still whisper about it. Oh yeah, we can talk about how X wasn't married when the first child was born, or how Y had an affair which broke up their marriage - we can talk about all sorts of things which would have been taboo for my grandmother, on moral grounds, but we don't talk about cancer.

The word goes around in secrets, and we don't know who knows and who doesn't - "Don't tell anyone, and don't say anything to him, but Z has prostate cancer."
So when you get 'a scare' yourself there's no-one to talk to.

Daft isn't?


----------



## Vagabond

In Greece, there is a tendency among older people (and I suppose it might even be local to certain areas) to avoid the word "cancer". They will refer to it as "παλιαρρώστια" (bad disease, roughly); however, they will not freak out if they hear you pronounce the word. 

I think that even some people from my parents' generation fear cancer like the devil - don't even try to joke about it with my mother, for instance; she has no problem saying the word or anything, but if I say something like "this is so stressful, it will give me cancer" (or anything along these lines; connecting stress or sadness with cancer as an expression is common in Greece), she *will* go berzerk. Guaranteed.

I think in some (older) people's mind, cancer is synonymous to death itself; I was thinking that if I joke to my mom about getting AIDS, for example, she will not freak out at all (and might even go into teasing me about what I do with whom - _as a joke, people!!  _). Even though, if you think about it, you have more chances to get rid of cancer.

So anyway, I think that cancer being a disease that was identified as incurable and was considered as such for such a long time, and one that we couldn't make heads or tails of as to what causes it, has terrorised some people for a good part of their lives, and it's hard to get over that fear. Think syphillis in the early 1900s or leprosy a couple thousand years ago.

PS: Oh, on something maxiogee said: in Greece too, you don't talk to the sick person about their sickness. I suppose people think you "remind" them of it (as if they had forgotten? Duh). It follows up with the lousy tendency to keep a seriously sick or dying person in the dark about their condition, to avoid "making them sad". So everyone around you knows you are dying, and you know "you are getting better". If they did that to me, I would be too pissed off to make my peace before dying.


----------



## betulina

Where I live the word "cancer" was hard to hear until recent years. You could hear that someone had "an ugly disease" but never "cancer". I agree with Panjandrum that it was because it was very related with "death".

However, over the last ten-fifteen years maybe it's been changing. You can hear it more and more. Even in the news you can hear it (along with "a long disease"). Some of my closest relatives died from cancer and when I hear someone saying "an ugly disease" I can't help saying "cancer you mean?". I can't explain why, but this euphemism hurts. Fortunately, we begin to call things by their name.


----------



## Vanda

Quoting Elaine:


> In the U.S., we don't have this issue, but where I lived in Sicily, it was still very much a new thing to say out loud that you had cancer, knew someone who died of cancer, etc. Young people would talk about it openly, but not older people In fact, I read that treatment and prevention were very much problematized in Italy by the reluctance to talk about the subject!


 
Brasil, Italia, what is the difference?  I mean, taking into account the Italian influence here because of its number of immigrants and descendants I wonder if our "fear" of saying the word has to do with that influence. But, just like Elaine said, young people have no problem with the saying of it. It is likely that you find only older people afraid of using the word. The reason? I think Panj said it for me:


> It is not prejudice. It is simply fear.
> The word cancer invokes another word, death.
> That is difficult for people to cope with.


----------



## Aurin

As Panj. insinuates there is a difference speaking about cancer being affected directly or not (oneself or loved ones). Even doctors I heard avoiding the term cancer and using the better sounding term tumour (because tumours can be benign or malign and so there seems to be more hope). I think it depends on the level of awareness people are living with. Who denies the fact of dying even in the hour of death might deny also the fact of cancer preferring disguise the word.


----------



## Hakro

In Finland the word cancer (_syöpä_ in Finnish) is seldom used in necrologies; it's usually "a difficult disease" or something like that. I don't know why, because elswhere the word cancer is used without problems.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

Reading this thread was the very first time I've known about such superstition!


----------



## Outsider

KateNicole said:


> I never knew that cancer was "taboo" in certain areas!  It's especially interesting to me because (aside from skin and lung cancer) people don't have all that much control over getting it.  I don't mean to be offensive by any means, but I could see where a sexually transmitted disease like AIDS could carry some sort of a stigma (not that I support that), but not cancer . . .


Didn't you ever hear about the plague?

O.K., I know that cancer isn't contagious. What I'm trying to say is that it's got nothing to do with whether the pseron "asked for it". People simply react negatively to serious illnesses.


----------



## .   1

Outsider said:


> Didn't you ever hear about the plague?
> 
> O.K., I know that cancer isn't contagious. What I'm trying to say is that it's got nothing to do with whether the pseron "asked for it". People simply react negatively to serious illnesses.


I totally agree.
I don't associate H.I.V. with sex.  There are many ways to transmit the damn thing.  One bad blood transfusion can infect many more than unprotected copulation.

.,,


----------



## KateNicole

Outsider said:


> Didn't you ever hear about the plague?
> 
> O.K., I know that cancer isn't contagious. What I'm trying to say is that it's got nothing to do with whether the pseron "asked for it". People simply react negatively to serious illnesses.


 
That's fine. I don't take _any_ serious disease lightly. My point, though, is that where I come from, people call the diseases by their proper name, whether they are terminal, contagious or whatever else. It certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't pain us to think about the implications of cancer.  If, where you come from, people are uncomfortable using the word cancer, that's fine, too. I was just mentioning that it's interesting to me--I would have never guessed. 

When I lived in Mexico a close friend was battling throat cancer and people called it "cáncer." No alternative names were ever used. I haven't lived outside the US or Mexico.


----------



## KateNicole

. said:


> I totally agree.
> I don't associate H.I.V. with sex. There are many ways to transmit the damn thing. One bad blood transfusion can infect many more than unprotected copulation.
> 
> .,,


 
I was _never_ implying that people with HIV should be blamed for their condition, just to clear the record! I was stating that it was very interesting for me to learn that some people were uncomfortable using the word cancer, because where I live it carries no taboo, nor is it rare or too private for normal conversation. 

My reference to HIV was in regards to other taboos/stigmas that surround certain illnesses, and I was _certainly_ not promoting them. For example, AIDS was long associated with the homosexual population and there are many homophobic people, which is why I could understand _why_a stigma could be attached to that disease, but that does not mean that I share that opinion!

I once asked a boyfriend to get tested for STDs, and he seriously had never been more offended in his life.  He reacted by screaming at me, left my house in a storm, and yelled "¡Gracias por llamarme mono sidoso!"  (Thanks for calling me an AIDS-ridden monkey) as he slammed the door in my face.  It wasn't an accusation; it was for my own protection.  Needless to say, things ended there.  But I can assure you that if I had said, "You should wear sunscreen so that you don't get skin cancer," there would have been no screaming and no offense taken.  Why am I telling you this pointless story?  So you can understand the reason behind my first post on this thread, wherein I stated that cancer-stigmas were new to me, but AIDS stigmas were not quite as surprising.

Please, I beg you, do _not_ misinterpret or read too far into what I have said.  
...And I also see that I am not the only one that was unaware of people's dislike of the word.


----------



## panjandrum

Let me put this very bluntly, to make the point.

As a statement of our culture and what we have come to expect, saying that someone has cancer is saying that he is going to die.

The social taboo in relation to cancer is intimately linked with the social taboo in relation to death.

Let me tell you about a cancer patient. We'll call him John, because that was his name. John had stomach cancer. To anyone with any life experience, John's symptoms were of stomach cancer. 
John knew that. 
John's doctors and nurses knew that. 
John's family, being intelligent and observing the symptoms, suspected that.
John was of the "don't mention cancer" generation.
John insisted that the medical staff should not tell his family the truth. They respected his decision.
As he approached critical surgery, John knew he could die, John's carers knew he could die, John's family knew he could die.
John and his family laughed together for several days. They shared the brittle pretence that John had some kind of digestive problem. 
They played games together. 

Let me tell you about another cancer patient. We'll call him Tom, because that is his name. Tom had colon cancer. To anyone with any life experience, Tom's symptoms were of colon cancer.
Tom knew that.
Tom's doctors and nurses knew that.
Tom's family, being intelligent and observing the symptoms, suspected that. 
Tom was not of the "don't mention cancer" generation.
Tom insisted that the medical staff be completely honest with his family, as he was himself.
They respected his decision.
As he approached critical surgery, Tom's carers knew he could die, Tom's family knew he could die.
Tom's family cried together for a while. Then, acknowledging the joys they had shared for many years, they laughed together for several days. They shared the possibility that these could be their last days together, and in the dark moments, they cried, but their honest tears were preparation.
They played games together.

What's my point, my perspective on these in relation to this thread?

I suggest that the cancer taboo, the death taboo, robbed John's family of the acknowledgement that a glorious life was coming to an inevitable end. As John approached surgery, he knew he was lying, his family knew he was dying, and this prevented them from sharing.

I suggest that in overcoming the cancer taboo, the death taboo, Tom and his family approached surgery with an honesty that hurt beyond measure, but with a shared integrity and dignity that prepared them for any outcome.

I accept that each person is an individual, each family has it's own culture and mechanism for coping with crisis. But it seems to me that the fear of a word, cancer, and the source of that fear, the death taboo, conspire to deprive many people, and many families, of the most direct and intimate support they could have, at the point of their most intense need.

Sorry for the long stories, but I knew John, and I know Tom.
As it happened, John died.
As it happened, Tom didn't.


----------



## vachecow

I live in the US, and as was stated before there currently is no taboo regarding cancer.  However, when my grandfather died of it, he didn't want anyone to know, and, as far as I know, he never talked with anyone about it.


----------



## Outsider

The most disappointing thing is when health professionals have a taboo for these illnesses. I've heard of such cases.


----------



## Nunty

In Israel we tend to say מחלה קשה, "serious illness". If someone dies of "a serious illness", it was cancer. If it was something else, they would have said so. We can talk about cancer in the abstract, about research and treatments and drugs, but we hardly ever use it in conjunction with a person's name.

I have several very close friends who are living with cancer. One of them is dying of it as I am writing. She still cannot bring herself to use the word. Another is, perhaps, in remission. While she had "active disease", she got a perverse pleasure from telling people who asked "how are you", "aside from having cancer, I'm absolutely fine". It shocked them.

Interesting about what Panj said about having cancer means "going to die". We are all going to die. Every single one of us. We don't talk about that much. I wonder if in some cultures we avoid the word "cancer" so that we don't have to deal with our own mortality.


----------



## JamesM

There's been a great change in my lifetime in the U.S. regarding the discussion of cancer, in my experience.  When my grandmother went into the hospital in the late 1960s with some serious symptoms at the end of her life, she told the doctors that _she_ didn't want to know if it was cancer, and my parents were asked by the doctors not to tell her what was the cause of her symptoms in respect of her wishes.  

By contrast, a woman in my church choir asked for prayers at a rehearsal because she had been diagnosed with cancer in her lymph nodes.  She spoke about the treatment she would be receiving and her plans to return to choir as soon as her round of treatments were over.  

I was watching a home makeover show the other day and the people were asked how their house got into the messy state that it had.  The man said, "We spent the last year dealing with a cancer experience which took all our focus.  Now that we're through that, we're ready to set some goals and make some changes."

The whole subject is treated with much more hope and openness these days in a dramatic contrast to thirty or forty years ago.   I find it very encouraging.


----------



## .   1

Outsider said:


> The most disappointing thing is when health professionals have a taboo for these illnesses. I've heard of such cases.


All health professionals suffer from the same affliction with all it's attendant baggage. Humanity.
We are exactly as frail as they.

.,,


----------



## Poetic Device

On the East Coast here it is just as common to hear that word as it is to know someone that has/had it be a part of their life.  I don't think there are any secrets about it...  Well, no one really talks about colon cancer, but that is very understandable.


----------



## Etcetera

Joca said:


> There is clearly a prejudice against certain words. One of them is cancer. I think many fear to say this very word because they think that by saying it they are in a way summoning the very disease. So they will resort to sentences like this: "Oh, she is dying from THAT disease." "You know, the awful disease has killed him." Does this also happen in your area? I am not sure, but I think this is a kind of euphemism. Do we really need it?


No such euphemisms are used in Russia - at least I haven't heard of any. But I remember reading Solzhenitsyn's novel where one of the main characters carefully avoided calling his illness 'cancer': he preferred more scientific name of the kind of cancer he had. 
All in all, we try to avoid speaking about such diseases in vain, so to say. But I think most people wouldn't enjoy speaking about such things... just for pleasure.



Nun-Translator said:


> Another is, perhaps, in remission. While she had "active disease", she got a perverse pleasure from telling people who asked "how are you", "aside from having cancer, I'm absolutely fine". It shocked them.


And I really liked it, Sister. She seems to be a person with a good sense of humour - something everyone can make use of.


----------



## Poetic Device

Joca said:


> And wasn't AIDS in the beginning called the gay cancer?
> 
> And I agree with .., above: cancer is an ugly word, I mean, a very negative one. You often use it to describe something very evil in society.
> 
> JC


 
If I am not mistaken that is what it was called in the late 70's early 80's.  However, I still fail to see the connection between AIDS and cancer.  They are not the same.  Can someone explain?


----------



## .   1

Both are horribly fatal diseases.
Nothing less.

.,,


----------



## Poetic Device

Ah.  Okay.  Thank you.


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> We are all going to die. Every single one of us. We don't talk about that much.
> 
> .



Yes indeed. 
Life is a contagious, fatal disease - no one gets out of it alive.

Cancer and other diseases just me that we will probably die sooner than we would wish, or be justified in expecting from our ancestors' lifespans, and that we will know what the cause will be. Nothing else changes.


----------



## Joca

Nun-Translator said:


> ... We are all going to die. Every single one of us. We don't talk about that much...


 
Certainly we don't talk much about death, especially not about our own death, and if we do, it's often with a kind of (black?) humour. But many of us often think about death. I do, but I am not obsessive about it, either, you know.

JC


----------



## panjandrum

Some of this theoretical conversation is missing the point just a little.
It is still generally true in this part of the world that if you tell someone you have cancer, they believe you are going to die soon. 
If you tell someone you "had cancer" they think you are lying, you are fooling yourself, you are euphemising, and you are going to die soon.

People find it very difficult to talk to people they believe are going to die soon.


----------



## .   1

panjandrum said:


> People find it very difficult to talk to people they believe are going to die soon.


Do you mean friends and family or just strangers?

.,,


----------



## Joca

panjandrum said:


> Some of this theoretical conversation is missing the point just a little.
> It is still generally true in this part of the world that if you tell someone you have cancer, they believe you are going to die soon.
> If you tell someone you "had cancer" they think you are lying, you are fooling yourself, you are euphemising, and you are going to die soon.
> 
> People find it very difficult to talk to people they believe are going to die soon.


 
Hi

I seem to agree with this. Actually I find that caring for the dying in nursing houses and hospices to be one of most difficult jobs in the world. 

JC


----------



## Joelline

When, in 1999, I was diagnosed with breast cancer, I used the word freely when I spoke to relatives and friends (and anyone else who asked!). I was comfortable with the word; others were not. A "very good friend" and a couple of acquaintances suddenly stopped calling or contacting me. It was as if, for them, I had become a contagious "Typhoid Mary." After my surgery and treatment, I happened to meet the "very good friend" who apologized for her distance, and told me that she was just so upset about the whole thing that she couldn't bear to think of me dying. I replied, "Sometimes, it's not all about you." 

I've been "clean" (the pseudo-medical term my oncologist uses!) for 8 years now. If I'm "clean" now, what was I before?

However, I would like to reassure everyone that a diagnosis of cancer is not necessarily a death sentence. Cancer is not necessarily a "horribly fatal disease," though it is always a serious disease. Finally, I'd like to point out that in our modern society, where the *word* "cancer" is spoken freely, the stigma may still endure.


----------



## Nunty

Since Joelline has "come out", I will too. I am the woman is "perhaps" in remission (post 25). Actually, I find "remission" harder to say (believe in) than "cancer". When I had active disease and I told people who asked how I am "Except for having cancer, I'm fine!" it was a combination of bravado and childish pleasure in the shock value. Now, I just say "Fine, thank you" and leave the words "except that I'm living with cancer" unsaid.

I know people who have died - and one who is dying - of cancer. I know other people who live with it, and still others who had cancer, but no longer do, who are cured. I'd like to quote and cheer Joelline's words:


> ...I would like to reassure everyone that a diagnosis of cancer is not necessarily a death sentence. Cancer is not necessarily a "horribly fatal disease," though it is always a serious disease. Finally, I'd like to point out that in our modern society, where the *word* "cancer" is spoken freely, the stigma may still endure.


Brava Joelline! You said it all!


----------



## tomu

Joelline said:


> However, I would like to reassure everyone that a diagnosis of cancer is not necessarily a death sentence. Cancer is not necessarily a "horribly fatal disease," though it is always a serious disease. Finally, I'd like to point out that in our modern society, where the *word* "cancer" is spoken freely, the stigma may still endure.


I definitely agree and I think a great example of the fact that a diagnosis of cancer is not necessarily a death sentence is the American cyclist Lance Armstrong... diagnosed with testicular cancer that had already spread to his lungs, abdomen and brain, and after being successfully treated went on to win possibly the toughest major sports event in the world (the Tour de France) seven times in a row  (which is totally incredible, performance-enhancing drugs or not). According to his entry in Wikipedia, he's still running marathons, etc...


----------



## lizzeymac

Poetic Device said:


> If I am not mistaken that is what it was called in the late 70's early 80's.  However, I still fail to see the connection between AIDS and cancer.  They are not the same.  Can someone explain?



I am oversimplifying, but basically the AIDS virus destroys your immune system, this leaves you vulnerable to any disease you are exposed to.  In particular, you may develop one or several diseases that are very rare in young people or in "developed" countries. One of the first & most visible indications of the AIDS crisis in the early 1980s was many young men developing a particular cancer, Kaposi's Sarcoma, (one of the symptoms is large, dark skin lesions). KS is extremely rare, especially in the young, & the sudden & statistically huge increase in cases was the first indicator to doctors & health officials that there was "something" deadly out there. So... "the Gay Cancer"


----------



## .   1

Nun-Translator said:


> Another is, perhaps, in remission. While she had "active disease", she got a perverse pleasure from telling people who asked "how are you", "aside from having cancer, I'm absolutely fine". It shocked them.


Don't give up your day job.



Nun-Translator said:


> Since Joelline has "come out", I will too. I am the woman is "perhaps" in remission (post 25).


You're not much of a liar.

Sorry Sis,
Your choice of language was far too personal for the knowing eye to not know.  Say it and believe it.  Mathematics is never wrong.  There must be more cases of spontaneous remission than there are of cancer or the species would have died out by now.

May your road rise up to meet you.

.,,
If you don't swing the bat you'll definitely never hit the ball


----------



## Nunty

OK, so I'll have to give up on "con man" as a mid-life career change.

But I've been thinking about why Joelline felt okay about speaking up right away about having had cancer, while I felt it necessary to hide behind a shabby "someone I know". I also thought about my use of "coming out" as an image in post 39. I think both of my choices are the result of the reluctance to say "cancer" and to associate it with myself, a reluctance which may be more deeply ingrained in me, an Israeli (see post 25), than in Joelline, a USan.

There is a concept in psychology known as "counterphobia". This is a defense mechanism whereby we go hell-bent-for-leather toward the thing that frightens us as a way of dealing with it. (Similar to people breaking up a relationship before the other person gets a chance to do so.) My perverse pleasure in telling everyone I had cancer while I still had active disease was almost surely a largely counterphobic reaction to a terrifying reality. My present reluctance to say "remission" might be because it is not very terrifying at all, and I don't need to be counterphobic about it. (There is also a superstitious component, however.)

Joca, thank you for starting this thread and giving me a good reason to think about these things.


----------



## Joca

Nun-Translator said:


> ...
> 
> Joca, thank you for starting this thread and giving me a good reason to think about these things.


 
I am quite surprised at the things that are being brought up (dug out?) on this thread. As I first posted my question, I was especially concerned about the word, not really about the disease. I should have known better. Perhaps I was entertaining a hidden agenda. How on earth can you talk about the word cancer and leave out the powerful implications of the disease? 

I don't know if anyone said it before, but cancer has often been associated with a punishment for something "wrong" you have done or did in your own life, with the notion that you have not been kind enough to yourself, that you have been negligent with yourself, not having given due attention to your needs, both emotional and physical. In one word, you have mistreated yourself and that's why you have cancer now. Some authors even link cancer with an underlying desire to die.

I don't know if these things are entirely true or not, but I think that people unconsciously make these associations, and maybe here's why they don't like to tell other people that they have cancer themselves (if they do, it is often in a twisted way, black humour or demanding pity/mercy). Telling about your own cancer is much as admitting that you have not been good enough to yourself. Probably very few people are ready or willing to yield their palm, if you see what this means.

JC


----------



## Nunty

Joca said:


> [...]I don't know if anyone said it before, but cancer has often been associated with a punishment for something "wrong" you have done or did in your own life, with the notion that you have not been kind enough to yourself, that you have been negligent with yourself, not having given due attention to your needs, both emotional and physical. In one word, you have mistreated yourself and that's why you have cancer now. Some authors even link cancer with an underlying desire to die.[...]


In for a nickel, in for a dime.

I wrote a couple of articles while I was having chemotherapy, and did one television interview. All dealt with just this false idea, and - off topic though it be - I want to repeat here the main message I gave then:

Sometimes bad things _do_ happen to good people. Some things just happen. We don't know why. If you have cancer or some other catastrophic disease, please know this: *it is not your fault.*


----------



## maxiogee

Nun-Translator said:


> In for a nickel, in for a dime.
> 
> I wrote a couple of articles while I was having chemotherapy, and did one television interview. All dealt with just this false idea, and - off topic though it be - I want to repeat here the main message I gave then:
> 
> Sometimes bad things _do_ happen to good people. Some things just happen. We don't know why. If you have cancer or some other catastrophic disease, please know this: *it is not your fault.*



_Well, I'm not so sure_. 

Whilst my mother's cancer would not have been a 'punishment' or 'karma' or anything else of an unworldly nature - and accepting that all 7 of her siblings all had cancer, hers was very definitely related to the fact that she had smoked, heavily, for many years, only giving up about a year before she first fell ill with what was eventually diagnosed as lung cancer.
Some cancers are avoidable, so therefore they are as a result of things we have done - we just haven't known how to avoid them.


----------



## Joca

maxiogee said:


> _Well, I'm not so sure_.
> 
> Whilst my mother's cancer would not have been a 'punishment' or 'karma' or anything else of an unworldly nature - and accepting that all 7 of her siblings all had cancer, hers was very definitely related to the fact that she had smoked, heavily, for many years, only giving up about a year before she first fell ill with what was eventually diagnosed as lung cancer.
> Some cancers are avoidable, so therefore they are as a result of things we have done - we just haven't known how to avoid them.


 
Maxiogee:

In Portuguese we have the expression: to take the words out of someone else's mouth. I don't know how to convey that in English. But what I mean to say is that you have said exactly what I was hesitating to say. 
Thanks.
JC


----------



## Nunty

maxiogee said:


> _Well, I'm not so sure_.
> 
> Whilst my mother's cancer would not have been a 'punishment' or 'karma' or anything else of an unworldly nature - and accepting that all 7 of her siblings all had cancer, hers was very definitely related to the fact that she had smoked, heavily, for many years, only giving up about a year before she first fell ill with what was eventually diagnosed as lung cancer.
> Some cancers are avoidable, so therefore they are as a result of things we have done - we just haven't known how to avoid them.


Even there, we don't know that smoking in and of itself caused your mother's lung cancer. I am against smoking for many, many reasons - most of them health-related - but it is an incontrovertible fact that many more people smoke and do not get cancer than smoke and do get the disease. Genetic factors, environmental ones, life-style ones, as yet unknown ones and/or "the luck of the draw": any and all could be at the root of your mother's cancer or mine or Joelline's or anybody else's.

Returning to the topic, I would venture to say that it is just that apparent randomness that on the one hand causes people to search out all sorts of "reasons" for the disease and, on the other, be afraid to name it, in a kind of childish magical thinking.


----------



## panjandrum

OK girls, if you are prepared to do it, I will too.

You may have noticed my two little stories up the thread a little. Well one of those guys is me - I'll leave it up to you to guess which  
(I used my middle name to fool myself too.)

Why didn't I make that clear at the time?
Why did I spend the last hour or so wondering whether to post this?

It's nothing to do with how I feel about myself. Only last week I was filling in a survey form related in the health centre. I rattled down the long list of previous history questions ticking all the no's against each "Have you ever had ....". Then it came to cancer. 
Hang on a minute!
I gave the yes a big tick and a wry smile and moved on, thinking "Hey, that was no big deal!"

It's about the topic of this thread - the reaction of people to CANCER. Not entirely the word itself, but the implications of the word for the interaction between people - for the way people respond to me.  

I had some very strange conversations.  People wondered.  But if I didn't mention it, they didn't mention it, and they could still hold on to the idea that perhaps it wasn't cancer.

You lot in the WR community get to know what I choose to tell you about me. Do I want you to know that I had cancer? Not until today, I didn't. 

But everyone else who knows me knows about the cancer, and
today, because of this discussion, I'm happy that you all know too. I assume that like everyone else, you'll very quickly set that piece of information aside as mostly irrelevant.



I'd like to add a small footnote.
I bet there are others around who have, or had, cancer.
Please don't feel that just because there are a few who feel like sharing this information here you should do the same.


----------



## Nunty

Good for you, panj. You're no better a confabulator (*) than I am. 



panjandrum said:


> [...]
> I'd like to add a small footnote.
> I bet there are others around who have, or had, cancer.
> Please don't feel that just because there are a few who feel like sharing this information here you should do the same.


I wish I had thought to add that. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly!


(*) Or is that "prevaricator"?


----------



## lablady

A huge "Thank You" to those who have shared their stories.

I have been debating this post for quite some time, mostly because I don't want to sound like I am trivializing cancer. I'm hoping to sound encouraging.

There have been many advances in cancer treatment, no small number of them within the last relatively few years. It wasn't really that many years ago that a diagnosis of cancer was a signal to put one's affairs in order.

Many forms of cancer no longer need to be thought of as the death sentence they once were. That's not to say it isn't serious, because it *is* _*very*_ serious. And it is still a frightening diagnosis. But there have been marvelous successes, especially with the more common types (if it is possible to use the word "common" in association with cancer).

Again, I thank those who have posted their experiences to show that there is life after cancer. A hopeful attitude is one of the factors in a successful treatment.

I hope I've been able to express my thoughts clearly. This subject leads to a lot of seemingly random thoughts rattling around in my brain. Somehow I think I have more to say, but I am having difficulty finding the right words. (No, I don't have cancer...yet. But I know many who do)

Repeating Panj's aside, I am not encouraging the filling of this thread with personal experiences. I imagine there are few people who have not been touched by cancer in some way, either in themselves or in someone they care about.


----------



## Etcetera

Thanks all who have told their stories in this discussion. 
I admire you. And I wish you health. And many years of life.

Sorry for what may seem an off-topic here... but I couldn't but say it.


----------



## topaze

You are very courageous
I admire you
I don't know myself how I would react facing a cancer.
Nobody knows when he doesn't meet with the illness,how one coul'd fight with.
But to talk openly is already to overcome it.


----------



## Joelline

Sister, the only reason it was so easy for me to "come out" here is that I was getting more and more frustrated reading the "cancer is a fatal disease" posts. I consider myself (along with Lance Armstrong D !) to be a survivor.  

I also know damned well that I didn't deserve to get cancer: no genetic pre-disposition, no smoking, not a single one of the behaviors that "they" say "causes" cancer.  In fact, my best friend told me that she worried that I was "in denial" because I refused to accept any responsibility for getting breast cancer!  She belongs to the "accept the blame, then you can change the behavior that caused the problem" school. My Job-like protestations of innocence made her feel powerless.  If I got it for no reason, then she could, too.  To that, I pretty much said what Nun-translator said so well:  "Sometimes bad things _do_ happen to good people. Some things just happen. We don't know why. If you have cancer or some other catastrophic disease, please know this: *it is not your fault."*


----------



## Whodunit

I don't restrain from using the word 'cancer' in the appropriate context. If someone suffered from the disease (I know a person who is that lucky), he might speak about it more concernedly than someone who has never had anythig to do with it. The person who defeated that disease gave a talk about 'cancer' in a way not even a doctor would have been able to do it. Furthermore, it is more than normal to treat the causes, course, and consuequences of cancer in biology lessons in Germany.


----------



## Joca

Joelline said:


> Sister, the only reason it was so easy for me to "come out" here is that I was getting more and more frustrated reading the "cancer is a fatal disease" posts. I consider myself (along with Lance Armstrong D !) to be a survivor.
> 
> I also know damned well that I didn't deserve to get cancer: no genetic pre-disposition, no smoking, not a single one of the behaviors that "they" say "causes" cancer. In fact, my best friend told me that she worried that I was "in denial" because I refused to accept any responsibility for getting breast cancer! She belongs to the "accept the blame, then you can change the behavior that caused the problem" school. My Job-like protestations of innocence made her feel powerless. If I got it for no reason, then she could, too. To that, I pretty much said what Nun-translator said so well: "Sometimes bad things _do_ happen to good people. Some things just happen. We don't know why. If you have cancer or some other catastrophic disease, please know this: *it is not your fault."*


 
Maybe I won't be understood...?

While I believe it is unfair to talk in terms of fault and guilt in relation to cancer patients, I find it reasonable to talk about responsibility and involvement, unless you are a small child. I can't buy the notion that cancer comes out of the blue. It hits people and animals because of something they did or something that was done to them, even if they are completely unaware of what it was. I entirely believe that cancer is curable, but I also think that it is highly avoidable. 

_"Sometimes bad things do happen to good people. Some things just happen. We don't know why."_ I think it is totally true so far, but if you have cancer or some other catastrophic disease, it must have a physical and sometimes emotional foundation as well. You may not be to blame, you may not have chosen it, unless you are a suicidal type, but how can you deny that you or your environment had a part in it? Or do we hold ourselves irresponsible of our own life and believe it is all about destiny? If you had had a different lifestyle, job, diet, way to cope with your emotions, *a different terrain*, you probably wouldn't have had cancer in the first place. Or probably you would have it (we all grow cancerous cells all the time, but if conditions are good, they are destroyed by the body) and then it would go away of its own.

I believe this to be exact, but of course in expressing my personal view, *I am in no way dismissing the value of people's experiences with cancer, their fights, struggles, pains, choices, faith, hope, strength, and courage. Cancer survivors can be thought of as role models. *

Cancer can be a chance for you to change and improve your whole life, but I don't think you can think of it in terms of an accident.

JC


----------



## panjandrum

Joca said:


> Maybe I won't be understood...?
> While I believe it is unfair to talk in terms of fault and guilt in relation to cancer patients, I find it reasonable to talk about responsibility and involvement, unless you are a small child. I can't buy the notion that cancer comes out of the blue. [...]
> I believe this to be exact,
> [...]
> but I don't think you can think of it in terms of an accident.
> JC


On a purely theoretical level, I agree with you.
On a purely theoretical and mechanical level, there is a cause for everything. 

On the same principle, everything that you have said above applies equally to every illness, injury, incident, infection, insect bite, indisposition ... that you have ever experienced.

Yes, I am responsible for the choices I make in my life.
And you are responsible for yours.
But you can't know the consequences of every choice you make.
And neither can I.

Cancer doesn't come out of the blue.
Pneumonia doesn't come out of the blue.
Tuberculosis doesn't come out of the blue.
MRSA doesn't come out of the blue.
C difficile doesn't come out of the blue.
Etc.
Etc.

You chose to cross the Atlantic in 1912 on the Titanic.
Does that make your death your responsibilty?

It is true that on a statistical basis it is possible to correlate certain lifestyle characteristics with certain pathological consequences.  But no one has ever claimed any of these to be absolute.


----------



## Joelline

Joca,

I think I understand what you are saying, and, like Panj, I would agree in theory with part of what you say.  I am fully prepared to take the responsibility for my cancer if I only knew what the heck I had done!  I'd love to take that responsibility because then I could make absolutely sure I'd never get it again!

Was it a due to a defective gene that I was born with? What can I do about that?
Was it a medication that I took when I was 12 years old?
Was it because of the house I live in? But then why didn't my neighbors get it and why didn't the people who lived here for 30 years before me get it? (I know my neighbors and still know the previous owners of my house.)
Was it work-place related? Why didn't other women there get it?
But what good does it do to assign blame to an unknown cause? If I don't know or can't discover the specific "cause" of my cancer, then what have I gained except the identity of a victim (an identity that I absolutely reject for myself)?

For myself, I've grown more humble. I can accept that I do not know the reasons for many things, including my own cancer. But I also have the hope and the faith that, someday, I may understand many things that are a mystery to me now.


----------



## Lugubert

I have never. ever. heard anybody linking cancer to guilt. Responsibility, yes, when it comes to lung cancer and smoking. On the other hand, judging from all the people who are ridiculously heavy smokers and don't develop lung (or lip) cancer, it could be argued that people who are susceptible to lung cancer have a genetic constitution that makes them prone to nicotine abuse...

A man who has no diagnosis of prostate cancer on his death, can't have been healthy.

If this assertion puzzles you, let me explain that he must have expired prematurely from a very serious condition or accident if he hadn't had time to develop prostate cancer. I have used this quote of mine on several physicians when I was in pharmaceutical marketing, and they all agreed that it wasn't totally stupid.


----------



## Poetic Device

I don't know how true this is, but one of the doctors at the hospital I used to work at told me that every person have cancer cells in them--it's just a matter of what brings them out and causes them to be active...


----------



## Joca

Lugubert said:


> I have never. ever. heard anybody linking cancer to guilt. Responsibility, yes, when it comes to lung cancer and smoking. On the other hand, judging from all the people who are ridiculously heavy smokers and don't develop lung (or lip) cancer, it could be argued that people who are susceptible to lung cancer have a genetic constitution that makes them prone to nicotine abuse...
> 
> A man who has no diagnosis of prostate cancer on his death, can't have been healthy.
> 
> If this assertion puzzles you, let me explain that he must have expired prematurely from a very serious condition or accident if he hadn't had time to develop prostate cancer. I have used this quote of mine on several physicians when I was in pharmaceutical marketing, and they all agreed that it wasn't totally stupid.


 
Hi

Very interesting assertion. 

Unavoidably perhaps, this thread has diverted (away) from the original question. Anyway, I am compelled to say something within the realm of this digression, lest I will be considered an offender or ill-intentioned person. 

While I believe that cancer is basically promoted by faulty lifestyles and very deep emotional issues, I grant that some people might have a clear predisposition to developing (as someone said above I believe that we all have latent cancers inside) cancers, even if nothing "wrong" happens in their lives. This is possible (how could one deny it?), but I also think it is rare. In most cases, I think cancer is brought up to a body organ by a combination of real events, forces and predispositions that is - to a large or small extent - to be controlled by ourselves.  

Thanks to all.

JC


----------



## lyric49

Hello,
I am obviously coming in late on this thread, but did want to raise some things that might be worth mentioning.

Perhaps people's reactions to the cancer diagnosis have been shaped by "old" medicine, at least in the U.S. Twenty-five years ago, if someone were diagnosed with cancer, any kind of cancer, it would probably end badly. Now diagnosis and treatment of all kinds of cancers has improved substantially, and people are a bit more educated about it. 

Also, maybe the age of the people getting the disease and discussing it makes a difference. I'm not very young anymore, so every year I'm hearing more and more from my friends (and about people they know) that so-and-so has some kind of cancer. The shock value definitely decreases with continued exposure! 

With many people surviving a cancer diagnosis, I think the reaction to the "cancer" word is changing. However, even with early detection and aggressive treatment, if you are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, your chances of survival are slim to none. Sometimes people react differently to hearing something is "cancer" when they know what type of cancer it is. 

I have a friend who was diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphoma. People who don't know anything about this disease assume that it is fatal, because it is called "cancer." In fact, this is one of the most treatable "cancers" of the lot. My friend is fine now, and maybe even healthier than before!


----------



## jlc246

Joca said:


> Hi
> 
> Very interesting assertion.
> 
> Unavoidably perhaps, this thread has diverted (away) from the original question. Anyway, I am compelled to say something within the realm of this digression, lest I will be considered an offender or ill-intentioned person.
> 
> While I believe that cancer is basically promoted by faulty lifestyles and very deep emotional issues, I grant that some people might have a clear predisposition to developing (as someone said above I believe that we all have latent cancers inside) cancers, even if nothing "wrong" happens in their lives. This is possible (how could one deny it?), but I also think it is rare. In most cases, I think cancer is brought up to a body organ by a combination of real events, forces and predispositions that is - to a large or small extent - to be controlled by ourselves.
> 
> Thanks to all.
> 
> JC


 
I'm glad that everyone has been able to talk about these ideas in such a civilized way. I would like to respectfully state that I feel angry when anyone says that "_cancer is basically promoted by faulty lifestyles and very deep emotional issues_" and that it is "_brought up to a body organ_" by processes "_to be controlled by ourselves_." I don't feel angry at you in particular, and I believe that you have good intentions. However, I do feel very angry about this idea, so please be careful when and how you express it. 

From other encounters with this idea, I would guess that your beliefs help you to live life well, and for that reason I respect them. What we believe does affect how we perceive and think about the world around us. For example, if you believe that cancer is caused by things you control, then you may think that you can avoid it, which means that you may have less fear of it, which may make you happier. Also, you may have a healthier life style by avoiding smoking, eating well, exercising, taking care of your emotions, and doing anything else that you think will help prevent cancer. Good for you.

However, I completely disagree with the idea that you really can control whether you get cancer. I believe that you can influence your chances by not smoking etc., but you cannot prevent yourself from getting it by doing these things. Also, some people will do "risky" things (associated with cancer) and not get cancer. 

You are probably already aware that some people feel very angry when you make statements like the ones quoted, but in case you did not know that before, you do now.


----------



## Joca

jlc246 said:


> I'm glad that everyone has been able to talk about these ideas in such a civilized way. I would like to respectfully state that I feel angry when anyone says that "_cancer is basically promoted by faulty lifestyles and very deep emotional issues_" and that it is "_brought up to a body organ_" by processes "_to be controlled by ourselves_." I don't feel angry at you in particular, and I believe that you have good intentions. However, I do feel very angry about this idea, so please be careful when and how you express it.
> 
> From other encounters with this idea, I would guess that your beliefs help you to live life well, and for that reason I respect them. What we believe does affect how we perceive and think about the world around us. For example, if you believe that cancer is caused by things you control, then you may think that you can avoid it, which means that you may have less fear of it, which may make you happier. Also, you may have a healthier life style by avoiding smoking, eating well, exercising, taking care of your emotions, and doing anything else that you think will help prevent cancer. Good for you.
> 
> However, I completely disagree with the idea that you really can control whether you get cancer. I believe that you can influence your chances by not smoking etc., but you cannot prevent yourself from getting it by doing these things. Also, some people will do "risky" things (associated with cancer) and not get cancer.
> 
> You are probably already aware that some people feel very angry when you make statements like the ones quoted, but in case you did not know that before, you do now.


 
Thanks for enlightening me on this subject. Yes, indeed I have good intentions. But please mark my actual words. I am not being categorical. I allow for a combination of factors leading to a cancer and I am saying that you can control them to some extent. I am not saying that you have total control. If I emphasize lifestyle, it is because of my personal experience with healing diseases other than cancer just through a change in lifestyle, and also because I personally think (but I am not enforcing this the final truth) it is the main (but not the only) relevant factor. 

JC


----------



## jlc246

Yes - I understand -- thanks for your reply!


----------

