Breast vs prostate cancer

Agree with OllyBJolly - how would you expect to get the most effective distribution of research between all the different diseases if you’re relying on the relative marketing and fundraising abilities of charities?

Yeah the reporting is ridicuous, as are the people who are moaning about how unfair it is that women raise money for breast cancer and not prostate cancer. If people are concerned about the funding for prostate cancer, they can always fundraise/donate, surely. Rather than just moaning. If every person I have seen twisting about this donated a tenner, funding levels would go up like 10000%

I’d like to think this wasn’t a feminist issue as breast cancer isn’t a female only cancer in fact I think Male breast cancer is on the increase. I once saw a quote that if the money spent on breast cancer research alone had been spent on research into all cancers that an overall cure would already have been found. I wholeheartedly agree it’s upto men to raise money for our issues but at the same time men only causes are attacked by feminists as being misogynistic. Why should it be so hard for people as a whole to agree that the cancer as a whole is bad and all cancers are equal?

This is the typical argument MRAs make - but look at women they get all this. Implying they want men to get all that too (or women to stop getting it) and that it is just handed to them for nothing. Completely ignoring the fact that women had to fight for all these things.

Anyway, regarding this particular issue, the QALY's should be much higher for breast cancer than prostate, as women on average get it far earlier in life.

This is similar when girls do well in exams, it's seen as a problem. when the boys do better their success is celebrated, natural order has been restored. There was zero reason to mention breast cancer in relation to prostate cancer, it is not a competition.

Op I started much the same thread here and got told iwbvu.

Sorry to hear that weebarra, I hope things are going well. The progress made in treating breast cancer is amazing but much more still to be done

Why is screening not recommended by UK NSC?

Screening is not recommended because:
•evidence shows a benefit of prostate screening to reduce prostate cancer deaths by 21%. Despite this significant reduction, the major harms of treating men who incorrectly test positive still outweigh the benefits
•PSA is still a poor test for prostate cancer and a more specific and sensitive test is needed
•PSA is unable to distinguish between slow-growing and fast-growing cancers
•besides PSA, the current evidence does not support a population screening programme using any other test

legacyscreening.phe.org.uk/prostatecancer

Quite fur. I was diagnosed with breast cancer 4 years ago (BRCA2 positive, 36, 3 small children), so I confess to being happy about the research. However, such a tiny proportion is spent on children's cancers, it's embarrassing.
It's not a competition.

The whole thing has been badly reported. Prostate cancer is on increase as men are living longer. Something like 80% of 80 year old men have prostate cancer, but it’s slow growing (mostly) and doesn’t usually kill them. Women dying of breast cancer are generally much younger.
There is no accepted screening test for prostate cancer - the blood test is not that good because it picks up cancers which would otherwise not have caused problems and treatments esp surgical can have huge impact eg incontinence, reduced sexual function etc. Many men diagnosed with prostate cancer remain on ‘watch and wait’ for a very long time before treatment is required (if it’s required at all). Therefore the screening test itself can cause more harm than benefit due to stress, painful biopsies etc

As Olly states we should be focusing on brain tumours as the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40. There have been hardly any new treatments for childhood cancers in general for decades and side effects can cause problems for the rest of the patients life, which can be decades if we are talking about children -assuming they survive that long. It’s awful to see how CRUK use children in their adverts but put barely any money raised towards children’s cancer

It was my first thought too.

Rather than celebrating the rates of breast cancer deaths coming down, it was more like "It's not faaaaaair. Bloody feminists hogging funding". And the other thing which wasn't widely reported is that increased prostate cancer deaths are because more men are living longer and it just happens to be the thing they die of. A sizable number of men are just monitored because the cancer is a slow growing one, and something else used to get them first.

That's how I understood it anyway (I'm not a medical professional).

BreakingDad77
Is it that many men internally gendarise it as 'women's work'?

It does make me think there is an underlying problem that needs to be tackled. Men dont want to fund services that men also need and use, such as mens Rape Crisis or DV shelters.

I get that a prostate exam is physically and emotionally uncomfortable but really cant see how it differs from a smear test or colonoscopy, other than in the mind of the person receiving the exam. Its healthcare, not a sexual service or a test of manhood.

There has to be a reason why men feel so threatened and unwilling to take responsibility. And it is really galling to see MRA's say things like 'women play the victim card', and also 'more men die of suicide' or 'men's cancers aren't as well funded'.

Well, most of the funding has come from women getting involved and raising money. Cosmetics companies like Estée Lauder have also raised loads from events and the products they sell to women. Instead of the press making this a man vs women issue it would be nice to see those MRA’s investing some effort in doing something about this. God knows they seem to have a lot of time and energy to attack femninst, imagine what they could do if they directed their energy in attacking a disease that may actually harm them.

Aren't there several cancers (Lung?) that are bigger killers than either breast or prostate?

Surely one of the points about breast cancer (and skin cancer) is that people can actually do some self checks, so public awareness campaigns of how to do this are specifically relevant?

Sorry by it I mean charity work.

Men are just being idiots about this, misinformed that as has been mentioned that the money raised has been self generated. I bought one of those pins but that's as far as it got. Compare it to the social media secret words that were used to generate interest and buzz. Men could do the same but don't.

Is it that many men internally gendarise it as 'women's work'?

I agree, cancer funding is not a competition, it's a horrible thing for anyone to go through.

This debate is just a media construct designed to inflame. And why do we rely so heavily on charity funding to deal with disease that kills our citizens?

People fundraise and donate generally because a cause has touched them in some way. They don't logically work out which cause is more deserving or which one benefits more than any other. By relying on charity we create an unbalanced funding system.

Brain tumour is the number one cause of cancer deaths in the under40s yet gets less than 2% of available funding. It has a poor prognosis so isn't an attractive cause for research. Cancer that causes personality changes, epilepsy, loss of speech and limb control doesn't make for media friendly stories.

Let's not allow ourselves to bounce one cause off another. Let's push for a properly funded NHS for treatment and medical education system for research that directs money where it's most needed.

I do care about prostate cancer, because it killed my father, probably my grandfather and my uncle has been treated for it, and my male cousins will be wise to have early testing.

But I don't see why it has to be a competition. Can't they look at the history of breast cancer campaigning and learn from it, how to target fundraising, ways of raising awareness and so on? One of the main reasons that breast cancer doesn't kill as many as it used to is because of all the fundraising and awareness-raising that has been done. What is being observed is successful work, not selfish grabbing of funds. Use it as an example of ways to approach the problem rather than crying "'snot fair!"

Men campaign for breast cancer awareness too,

Breast cancer is an equal opportunity fucker though, so the research done benefits both men and women. But most women will go to see their GP if they find a lump in their breast, whereas men don't tend to.

I'm fed up of women being expected to sort all of men's problems out.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/why-do-some-forms-of-cancer-receive-more-research-funding-than-others-9771396.html

They’ve been going on about this for years, article from 2014. Breast cancer is ‘overfunded’. Not sure why this is but I’ve heard it argued that it’s a symptom of our breast obsessed society. It doesn’t take away from all the great fundraising women do but that’s not what they mean when they talk about funding. Men are of course far less likely to have campaigns/fundraising events, but I’m not sure that’s the route of the problem and it probably won’t solve it, if they did start some kind of campaign, without proper funding from institutes and scientific bodies.

Why is a rectal exam unacceptable for men, yet a vaginal exam ok for us?

Because, as a charmer once said to me (in a slightly different context) "things are meant to go into you, they're not meant to go into me"

Also, because a regular rectal exam would obviously make them vulnerable to catching the Gay

Although to be fair

I blame the media reporting

If you read that cause A got £100 and cause B got £20 you might (without knowing or being arsed to check the details) think that was unfair