It's not just cancers that some things get more attention than others. It's generally medical conditions. If you are connected closely with someone with one of the conditions you can feel that it is more important/more people have it etc.
But some things are less easy to market - and dare I say it, less important.
How many of you know someone with a limb deficiency? You know everyone has a story about their great uncle Henry who was missing his hand and still played the accordion and never stopped doing anything.
I know that from when dd was born without her hand, because everyone told us their own stories. It wasn't particularly helpful and definitely wasn't comforting - but they did mean well.
But they don't know why she was born like that. They know around 60 children a year a born with some sort of limb deficiency, which can be anything from missing an end of a finger through to all four limbs.
There are theories - sometimes presented as fact, but they are still theories.
Less than 1% have a known reason, normally genetic, and they (plus drugs related eg thalidomide) effect more than just one limb.
I'd love to know the reason, just for my own peace of mind, and also with the aim of stopping future children from being born like this.
There must be more to it though, because girl:boy ratio is 2:1 as is it effecting the upper rather than lower limbs, left rather than right and also the most common is between the elbow and wrist. So there must be more to it than either of the main theories which should by all considerations have no difference between any of these.
However it isn't life threatening, and, as disabilities go, it's a pretty minor one. So naturally research into it is low priority. And I agree with that.
I'd far rather the research money goes into meningitis, for example, which can cause amputations and worse.
Equally well, far more research goes into leg prosthetics - which are pretty good as far as operations go. Arm ones are heavy, clumpy, not good at fine motor movement - but look fairly good.
But I can see the logic here. Most, certainly most congenital, upper-limb amputees, choose not to use a prosthetic. They cause as many issues as they solve. Dd's used various ones over the years, but never consistently. And the 3-D printed ones that hit the news, I honestly have never known a child continue wearing them after the first few days.
Of all the children I know, I know one who has always consistently worn a prosthetic, but that's I think it, and they haven't gone for the top of the range myoelectric one, but a cheaper (and much lighter one).
But the lower-limb prosthetics are used extensively. You will, I can confidently say, have walked past someone who is using one and not realised. They don't look very good, so they'll have had long trousers on, but they operate pretty well - and are much more necessary for day to day life.
So much as I would love for them to produce an arm prosthetic that is light, can do fine motor control and is easy to operate, I can see that the focus is more important on other things.
Now it's not always true that the right things get the money. It tends to be things that are easier to market, but also it sometimes takes someone to bring a campaign.
The reason why children have functional prosthetics available on the NHS is because someone campaigned back in the 70s for their child. Before that all a child had available was a cosmetic one or a hook.
So if you have a medical cause close to your heart, then why not look into campaigning for it? Lobby the government for funding for that specific need.
That's the way things will get moving.