Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think Cancer Research should rethink some of their marketing?

381 replies

MrsCarriePooter · 05/12/2011 12:13

This is a fairly mild AIBU but interested in what you think.

We were in our local Cancer Research shop this morning and in the window they had a big poster of a woman who had survived breast cancer, but the wording was something about "Vanessa wasn't going to let cancer beat her". I said to the volunteer insider when I was paying that I thought that was a bit offensive, as though those who die from cancer just had decided to roll over and "let cancer beat" them. Was I just being overtouchy? Having had relatives die of cancer I know I could be. The volunteer said "she'd pass my views" on to the area manager.

OP posts:
Winkcat · 07/12/2011 13:33

As a cancer sufferer, going through chemo at the moment I agree wholeheartedly with the OP and all those who have supported her.

Cancer treatment can be incredibly passive; you sit there and let the chemo wash over you, into every nook and cranny.

I can only echo the other posters, I hate "battle", "fight" and the "but you will get better right" attitude. So you know better that the doctors do you? Didn't think so.

Esta3GG · 07/12/2011 13:34

The findings of CRUK today regarding 43% of tumours being preventable are very interesting - but YET again we have to endure shit reporting by shit reporters.

The risible Jeremy Laurance, the alleged Health Editor in the Independent regarding keeping cancer at bay through diet says:
"Go on eat a bag of friggin' carrots today. It's that simple."

That simple eh Jezza?
Fucking cretin.
57% of cancers are NOT preventable. I have been a vegan and vegetarian all of my life and eaten more fucking carrots than he's had hot dinners but I still got cancer in my 30s and then again in my 40s.
Argh. Angry

SweetestThing · 07/12/2011 13:47

Esta3GG, I was listening to an article about that on the news this morning as I drove to hospital for an appointment and felt that I must be a bit of a failure, then, as despite eating healthily, scarcely touching alcohol (and even then only wine or fizzy), exercising several times a week, running regularly and generally trying to live as healthily as possible, I still ended up with a cancer that normally affects elderly men who have been heavy smokers and spirits (esp whisky) drinkers all their lives! There's just no guarantee that looking after yourself will mean you never get cancer.

I find myself getting so cross when I see people who are doing things that are known to be major contributors to illness. I feel like going up to them and shaking them and saying "Don't you know what health risks you're storing up for yourselves?". And yes, I know that it's about personal choice whether to smoke, drink, eat fat-laden food etc, but if they knew how it feels to have a cancer dx and the fear and worry and uncertainty it brings, would it maybe make them think twice? Or maybe not, I don't know. Having a cancer dx does seem to have made me feel cross about lots of things!!

HarrySantaatemygoldfish · 07/12/2011 13:51

I think it's been badly reported.

Diet and lifestyle can certainly reduce or increase your risks of certain cancers but that is what it is, risk.

I'm glad they mention the breastfeeding risk though, it's such an important one and breast cancer affects so many women that raising awareness that you can reduce your risk is vital.

becstarsky · 07/12/2011 13:54

I think CRUK should have phrased that 43% of tumours being preventable release far more carefully. People can reduce their statistical risk of getting cancer via lifestyle - that is NOT the same thing as individual cancers being preventable. And what do they mean by 'prevent' anyway? I think what they actually mean is 'postpone' because these people who don't get cancer because of their healthy lifestyle are not, in fact, immortal. They will die one day, of something, most likely cancer if they have a genetic tendency to it. There's a big difference between 'prevent' and 'postpone' and 'prevent' sounds a bit like 'blame the victim' to me. Of course we should all be careful about our diet and lifestyle and the research is helpful, but it sounded to me like CRUK wanting to make a headline-grabbing assertion.

becstarsky · 07/12/2011 13:54

x-posted HarrySanta - great minds Smile

hackmum · 07/12/2011 14:38

Esta3GG - and not only is it not that simple, it's the wrong advice. The research showed that the biggest risk factor by far is smoking - diet is actually a much smaller risk factor.

MaryAnnSingleton · 07/12/2011 15:44

the not breastfeeding risk is really quite small - I wonder how much it contributed to my own breast cancer - I tried to breast feed,really I did but was unsuccessful-it wasn't a life style choice just unfortunate that it didn't work out for me

HarrySantaatemygoldfish · 07/12/2011 15:50

It is significant enough though maryann.

Breast cancer is far more common now than in the past when breastfeeding was more popular/common.

It's all about risk, at the end of the day. No guarantees, no absolutes, just risks.

hackmum · 07/12/2011 16:27

MaryAnnSingleton - from what I know about breast cancer (and apologies if I'm telling you stuff you already know here), the main reason for its prevalence in modern society is that women spend more years of their life menstruating, hence more time with oestrogen in their bodies. Years ago, women started menstruating in their late teens, then they might spend much of their adult life pregnant, and would breastfeed for longer too. All of this reduced their number of menstrual cycles and minimised the amount of oestrogen in their bodies, thus reducing the risk.

Also, they died younger, and that reduced the risk too - your chances of getting any kind of cancer, including breast cancer, grow as you get older.

ForwardOcho · 07/12/2011 17:01

I have read this entire post in dark silence, not wishing to wake DH snoozing after his last chemo in this cycle yesterday. SweetestThing we watched the CRUK report on breakfast news this morning, getting crosser and crosser. DH is a health paragon, eats so carefully, has never smoked and cops for an incurable blood cancer. And he did say 'why me?' I have spent the last few months fending off suggestions of organic diets and raw food from certain friends. Chemo is awful, but we are so thankful for it. If it hadn't been for advances in the treatment for this cancer over the last few years, he'd be dead now.

aloiseb · 07/12/2011 18:08

I hope this doesn't sound glib, or insensitive, in the face of so many heart-wrenching stories on the thread about younger people having cancer, but I think it should be pointed out that as we have an ageing population, and cancer is a disease mainly of old age, it's no wonder that it's getting commoner statistically.

Fewer people are dying young of heart disease etc which are becoming more treatable - so cancer gets them when they are older.

I'm not sure what's to be done about that.

latrucha · 07/12/2011 19:14

I don't know if this has been mentioned here but I thought some people on here might be interested in this thread.

Esta3GG · 07/12/2011 19:24

I truly believe that every single journalist should do a course in the difference between absolute and relative risk. I am a cretin when it comes to anything numerical but even I can understand the bloody difference.

I do think the findings of this CRUK report are very interesting - especially that smoking increases risk of liver cancer more than alcohol. Some is pretty mundane too - 20 % of avoidable cancers caused by smoking.

Smoking causes cancer - so what - tell us something we don't know.

Either way the reporting across the board has been pisspoor yet again.
Health journalists hang your heads in collective shame.
And CRUK for chrissakes get some decent PR people working for you.

Wingdingdong · 07/12/2011 19:53

YANBU.

Some lifestyle factors may influence some types of cancer, but mostly it's just bad luck/genetics. I have two aunts who've undergone treatment (including mastectomy, chemo, etc) for breast cancer, diagnosed in 40s and 50s, and their sister, my mother, has had a pre-cancerous tumour removed from her breast. All three breastfed, none smoked, so that has FA to do with it. Clearly it's genetic. Both their brothers are already dead from stomach cancer. Their father died from stomach cancer.

Did my mother and her sisters survive because they 'fought' and their brothers and father die because they 'were beaten'? No, the women survived because they were diagnosed early enough and because treatments for breast cancer had advanced far enough. My mother didn't even progress to cancer itself simply due to her older sisters having had it and paying for private screening. Far easier to remove a pre-cancerous lump than when it's much later stage and has spread. My uncles and grandfather, on the other hand, were diagnosed with stomach cancer only after it had spread, and when they had six weeks left - after months/years of being told they had stomach ulcers.

I also agree with the aggressive marketing. The final straw for me was after having raised money for a cancer charity, they followed it up with a thank you letter and what felt like a blackmail demand to set up a direct debit. It arrived on the day of my uncle's funeral. They then phoned me a week or so later to ask if I'd considered setting up a direct debit yet. I would not consider raising any funds for them again and now find smaller cancer charities to support. People give what they can, when they can, for their own reasons. Not because they've been blackmailed into it.

pranma · 07/12/2011 21:24

MAS as you know I had breast cancer too and often wonder if not bf contributed to it.I really really tried both times-never got any milk with ds[was in Africa so not much help]so went straight to ff after 3 days-used breast as a dummy!With dd got awful mastitis then at 6 week check was dx with blocked milk ducts.had to have regualr cysts drained for next 30 years then got breast cancer anyway!
Let me quote a poem I wrote for a bc website:
Facing Facts
Some say that it's a journey
With a range of destinations.
And some call it a battle-
Like a war between two nations.
I say it's cancer.

Some say that you can fight it;
That you will overcome-
Some even say they're better
Than what they've travelled from.
I say endurance.

Some see shades of fluffy pink
And ribbons tied in bows.
some hear the catchy slogans....[tickled pink anyone?]
But I'm not one of those.
I know the fear.

Some still believe in 'the all-clear'
And 'put it all behind you'.
But I have learned the bitter truth
So let my verse remind you-
Be watchful
Live in hope
Face facts.

acumenin · 08/12/2011 07:58

Yes, I hate it. And I hate the stuff they send me all the time. It's relentless. My mum died of cancer two years ago, and I have a direct debit to Cancer Research, but I can't stand the marketing. They keep sending stuff to my house and it's - it feels so selfish to cancel the payment but I just want them to shut up and leave me alone. Why can't I just give them money and they research cancer? Why do they have to make me feel so shit? I don't get their motivation.

Del123 · 08/12/2011 09:18

I breastfed both my children and yet was diagnosed with breast cancer a year ago at the age of 35. There really are no guarantees, I ate healthily, exercised..

Since my diagnosis this same research comes out in the news about every 3 months regarding diet and lifestyle (and makes me feel shit every time) surely we have got the message by now? Yes 40% of cancers may be preventable but what about the 60% that aren't and are down to 'environmental' factors? I would like to see some money going towards that area. Why the increase in all cancers? It can only partly be explained by an ageing population.

Cancer Research have really gone down in my estimation, the marketing is highly offensive and they should definitely not be hassling people who have been affected by this horrible disease.

knockneedandknackered · 08/12/2011 09:18

ive never really thought about it but come to think of it your view is right. someone veryclose to me has terminalcancer she has been bloody strong all the way through it even though she is going to die. if she haden't of been it wouldent be because she lost the will to fight it's because it's grulling treatment and hard on the body.

PrideOfChanur · 08/12/2011 09:50

It is difficult looking at what you might have done,especially with regard to bf or not,when so many factors influence what you do.
For what it's worth I had BC at 49,and I bf'd for 11 years in total - pre diagnosis I did sometime reassure myself with the thought that I wasn't likely to get BC!!That's the point about relative risk though,it doesn't predict what will happen to an individual.

Something must be off with the approach of the big cancer charities if they are alienating many of those people you'd expect to be keenest to support them,those whose relatives or friends have had cancer,or who have had cancer themselves.
I also dislike the whole pink branding of BC - I hate sex stereotyping,I hate the girls like pink and fluffy,boys like blue and tough bit - and what do I get?
BC - pink ribbons,pink T shirts.....I know it isn't important in the big scheme of things but it does irritate me.....

PrideOfChanur · 08/12/2011 09:53

Coming back to say I really like you poem,pranma - thanks for posting that.

amberlight · 08/12/2011 09:56

The total income of cancer charities in the UK is around half a billion quid a year. All they have to do, and I do mean ALL they have to do, is find out how cells manage to avoid the body's natural defences. And we're only one country! Imagine the whole international spend on cancer, and apparently not one of them has the slightest clue how a single cancer cell really works yet.

Ye heavens, how hard can it be? We managed to put men on the moon decades ago...and we don't know how one ruddy cell works when it goes rogue? It beggars belief. Instead of blaming the people like me who get cancer, I'd like to see the cancer charities properly accountable for how they're spending that fortune. Grr.

Del123 · 08/12/2011 10:09

Totally agree Amberlight. The general public continue to donate huge amounts of money to these cancer charities and the best they can come up with time and time again is 'it's all your fault' and then 'if you battle hard you'll beat it'. They should be ashamed of themselves and yes be made accountable to how they are spending the money.

Pranma, fantastic poem. Especially liked the bit about the 'all clear'. We'll never get the all clear. People don't realise that.

porcamiseria · 08/12/2011 10:27

I love this thread and its so fucking important

agan, the charties do so much good with their research but the wank that is spouted.....

I really hope this can come to something and that the BULLSHIT - YOU CAN BEAT CANCER message is taken away from our lexicon

lots of luck and love to everyone on here

del123, well said