AIBU to think that in general cancer fundrasing campaigns are getting quite tasteless / disrespectful?

[KitKat1985]

Hello all.

Not sure if I'm just being grumpy here (pregnancy hormones) but in general are other people finding that a lot of 'cancer fundraising campaigns' are getting quite tasteless, or even disrespectful? Twenty years ago most fundraising seemed to come from marathon runners, or from bake sales, or charity shops, or even street collections. They may not have made millions, but at least they were dignified and inoffensive.

I'm not going to go into the [infamous] 'no make-up selfie' debate, suffice to say that in my opinion I found the whole thing shallow and the concept of 'braving' your make-up less face as in some way uniting yourself with the bravery of cancer victims quite offensive. The latest craze now seems to be for men to post a picture of themselves with their 'cock in your sock' as a way of fundraising for testicular cancer. I do understand that these campaigns make a lot of money and draw a lot of attention, but AIBU in finding them a bit tasteless, or even offensive? Over the past 5 years I've had to watch my Dad slowly battle cancer, and we know his situation long-term will be terminal. I've had to deal with watching him screaming in pain, go through months of chemo, and God-knows how many anxious nights whilst he's in hospital. My Mum is facing spending her retirement alone, and as a couple my Dad not being able to work for 5 years has essentially ruined them financially. Is it really that wrong that I'd just like to see some cancer fundraising campaign that deals with the issue of cancer with a bit of sensitivity, respect and dignity? Or should I just accept that this is the best way for charities to make the most money now and 'anything goes'?

Good luck getting equitable funding for brain cancer out of CRUK.

It's been a bone of contention among people afflicted with certain forms of cancer for years, as they market themselves as an umbrella charity.

I know it's emotive.

But for every happy snap of o look at me with no makeup there is someone who has had to watch someone they love die in pain or fears it for themselves.

No one is going on fun runs for bile duct cancer, which is what killed my mum. Because people don't like the nasty cancers that kill 95% very quickly. It all seems to be rah rah for breast cancer because people can kid themselves it's curable.

Hi, your Mum had a great sense of humour! She is one of a group of women I used to look up to and think I want to live like that. I've lost so many friends who lived well for as long as they were able, despite chemo and all the crap it brings. I face ongoing stuff now and think what would they do? I sometimes read old forum posts to remember their advice, strengths, humour. Take care. X

Sorry, it's late, the post above was for Scarlet, thanks.

Don't quite know what to make of this thread. On the one hand I do agree that the naked selfies are a bit self indulgent but on the other hand they have resulted in a significant increase in donations - so that has to be a good thing, surely?

And the fact that the focus is breast cancer is surely just a reflection of the fact that it's by far the most common female cancer so it's the one most people will have been affected by.

Fair enough. But those of us who have had it, who still have a 20% chance of not being alive in five years are entitled to feel pissed off and find it self indulgent.

My mother recently died of leukaemia. I'm not on Facebook but from what I've read on here these Facebook campaigns seem like sanctimonious, self-publicising twaddle.

The idea that posting a "selfie" of yourself with no make-up bears any resemblance to the devastation caused by cancer or is showing empathy is beyond ridiculous and you're an idiot for thinking so. I am so glad I did not stumble across any of this nonsense when she was dying.

Pissed off about people donating money to find a cure for the disease you're suffering from? Why?

Please don't be deliberately stupid.

Donate away that's brill and fabbo. But less of the self indulgent wankery look at me o look at me bollocks while you are at it.

Sorry if I am angry. But I am.

Two people on my Facebook feed are doing it and posting on each other's photos 'o you look GAWJUS'.

I do not want to be friends with either of them any more.

Exactly Spero why do you have to trumpet you've made a donation?

Are donations actually being made or is it just "increasing awareness?"

'But for every happy snap of o look at me with no makeup there is someone who has had to watch someone they love die in pain or fears it for themselves.

No one is going on fun runs for bile duct cancer, which is what killed my mum. Because people don't like the nasty cancers that kill 95% very quickly. It all seems to be rah rah for breast cancer because people can kid themselves it's curable.'

This ^^

Spot on, Spero.

And the funding is entirely skewed, especially by CRUK, which markets itself as an umbrella charity.

'It can only be a good thing, all the money raised.'

If you have certain types of cancer. And then, best to you, really, but I take issue with charities who market themselves as umbrella when they are not.

It's only 'rare' when it doesn't happen to you or someone you love.

But the point is that the photos have prompted people to donate who wouldn't otherwise. Surely, for a charity, that's the bottom line.

Are these actual donations or just pledges? I'm with Spero on this; the selfie thing is just attention-seeking. People that will donate will just do it, for whatever reason, they don't need to promote themselves in the process.

Well hoo bloody ray. And will they donate for me if my cancer metastasizes? And spreads to my liver and bones? Not many people bigging it up for stage IV cancers.

I think the breast cancer charities exploit this myth that We Can Beat it. I don't think it is a good long term strategy for trying to combat cancer which surely must focus more on trying to stop it developing than 'curing' it once you have got it.

£2m in actual donations to CRUK.

CRUK who markets itself as an umbrella charity to 'beat cancer'. Look up their stats on Google until my mate who used to work for them and whose son is dying of brain cancer gets back to me with better links.

They are not funding 'cancer'! They are funding only certain ones.

And that is fine, if they were honest about this.

They are NOT.

I agree with Spero 100%, too!

£2m. Do you realise how much of that is their overheads?! It's a lot, and then, what little goes to research . . . it is far from equitably split though they market themselves as umbrella cancer research charity.

And again, the photos and crap.

I have a good friend, whose son died of epilepsy in early adulthood and she has HFA and is really struggling with this this, 'Why don't they just donate then?'

And I have been on threads here. 'Please donate blood if you can! Blood and platelets. All cancer patients need this and it cannot be bought.'

I'd be happier to see selfies of people with a needle in their arm, giving blood.

Taking snaps of their organ donation and bone marrow donor cards.

Surely CRUK target their resources on the cancers where there is the greatest chance of a breakthrough which would have an impact on the largest number of people. That seems a reasonable strategy to me.

My family has been affected by rare cancer and whilst I would love to see that eradicated I can understand that where resources are restricted you target that resource where you get, in crude commercial terms, more "bang for your buck".

I'm really saddened that there seems to be so much hostility for an admittedly daft campaign which has resulted, for whatever reason, in such a huge windfall for cancer charities.

Expat, I see first hand the cutting edge research funded by CRUK and know what it costs. They fund excellent research.

'Surely CRUK target their resources on the cancers where there is the greatest chance of a breakthrough which would have an impact on the largest number of people. That seems a reasonable strategy to me.'

There is greater chance of 'breakthrough' when there is funding for research!!

The rates of survival of some cancers has skyrocketed due to funding of research!

People are not 'targets'.

I lost my little girl to the form of leukaemia most common in adults, but because most afflicted are in their 50s or above, and very many do not survive the decades old, INCREDIBLY harsh protocol (due to lack of funding into better treatments), its survival rates have not much improved. 3-4 rounds, all in patient via a central line prone to infection. Each round 7-10 days long of 2-3 of the strongest known chemo drugs, back to back with no break, that annihilate most of the immune system and put them in strict isolation for months, with little hope of surviving any infection including those from naturally occurring bacteria in the body and NO new drugs bar two from kidney cancer which are known not to hold their cancer in check for long, because of so little funding for many types of cancer.

More equity in funding could be a start towards improving survival rates for ALL, and especially considering many go on to develop secondary cancers, often to the brain.

NO proton beam therapy treatment centres except hopefully one opening for adults at the Royal Marsden, hopefully, this year, for adults, none for children until 2017, and children under 4 cannot take radiotherapy and even then, the result is often severe disability or death.

If you're going to market yourself as an umbrella charity, then be less skewed in how you fund, otherwise, you are misleading people into believing you stand for all 'cancer' when you don't.

Which cancers, Johns, which ones?

My daughter died cancer-free, of secondary infection following stem cell transplant as her cancer was not curable with chemo. Her death is still recorded, of course, as a cancer death.

We donated her last, successful bone marrow harvest, 500mL of cells which will culture that cancer in a lab readily, to worldwide research.

We know Novartis has applied for a sample, with a grant trying to develop a drug to target her specific mutation, AML FLT3, the most common mutation in adults, but almost entirely lethal in paeds, even with successful stem cell transplant.

CRUK is not equitable in their research funding and this is the problem I and many have with them.

When they put out ads with, 'Cancer, we are coming to get you,' they mean mostly certain types.

I find that wrong.

Expat, I cannot begin to imagine what you have been through and I can only extend my heartfelt and genuine sympathy to you and your family. All I am trying to say is that, in my opinion, anything that increases donations to a genuine charity with dedicated, talented researchers cannot be a bad thing.

Personally, I haven't posted a photo as it's just not my thing but I don't condemn those who have.

Not to mention, radiotherapy, particularly to the brain stem, as is the case for those with medulloblastoma, which mostly strikes paeds, can and does cause secondary leukaemia with bone marrow failure, necessitating a further, HIGHLY dangerous and toxic round of chemo for allogenic transplant, the patient cannot use his/her own bone marrow due to the carcinogenic affects of the radiotherapy that caused theirs to fail in the first place, and putting them at risk of further relapse.

You are right there, Johns, it is a genuine charity, but one which markets itself as an umbrella one for 'cancer' and yet its research funding is not.

I think that is wrong, not to inform the public of that.

When you donate to Pancreatic Cancer UK, to Brain Tumour Trust, to Neuroblastoma Alliance, to Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research, to Anthony Nolan, you know what you are doing.

But when you give to CRUK I think they have a duty to inform you where most of that research money goes, because it is far from equitably split.