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'?

And I am not condemning those who post selfies and text those £3, but I think that charity has a duty to inform them where that money is going, because it's indeed for 'cancer' but not at all equitably for all, and therein lies my problem with them.

'Cancer, we're coming to get you,' is not true on the basis of their funding.

Some cancers they are coming to get, and good on them for this, but don't make differently.

Cancer is tasteless and disrespectful. Some of those who suffer are tasteless and disrespectful. My family who died from cancer were tasteless and disrespectful.

And warm and funny and obscene and dying and dead and and angry and heartbroken. I see no fucking reason why in the midst of their terminal pain or my grief, we should have been tasteful and respectful. I see no reason why I should have to cowtow to those who are pissed off at what charity I support and are offended about how I support it.

But please, by all means tell me how you would prefer me and my family to deal with it and we will do our utmost not to twat you before we tell you to fuck off.

PS for the first time in my memory I have not RTFT. The OP is more than enough

I don't even do the fucking FB thing.

I was shocked at 'the cock in sock' idea.. I honestly didn't believe I would see any photos but the one guy I know who did it has actually had testicular cancer and survived.

So it's hard to condemn him when he's raising money to fight the type of cancer he suffers, despite the photos not being to everyones' taste.

I've lost my mum and dad to cancer, many moons ago...don't mind any fundraising opportunities at all...but while trying to raise funds for a cause that is small and so personal at the moment, it just doesn't register now, feel awful even saying that.

I agree with expat, but I would actually go further. Some cancers are deemed more "worthy" than others and it stinks.

My OH is an oncologist and he says it's a vicious circle. Less research is done into lung cancer, pancreatic, anal etc. so there are fewer treatment options. Which means that sufferers are more likely to die, and understandably, the brightest and best young onco's want to go into an area where they can treat and cure people...

However, it's also increasingly a chronic long-term disease that you die with (not of) and for some, a blip on the road of an otherwise healthy life. (Ade Edmonson was talking about Jennifer Saunders cancer in an interview and he compared it to "like having a cold these days" in some cases). Often we are comparing apples with oranges - it's not one disease, it's many. Many people do suffer appallingly and do not survive, but that is not universal.

Try as I might, I can't be offended by or belittle a campaign that has raised millions for CRUK even though it is silly (!) and I would prefer the cash to be given to underfunded/rare cancers and not just those that are "fashionable".

DP lost his brother to AML...or rather to the horrific graft versus host disease following a bone marrow transplant.

It was 14 years ago now, but I often think of the uncle that the DC don't have, and so I was interested in your daughter's contribution to medical science there...I wonder if they had the same mutation.

In his will, DP's B left some money to the ward he was in...he was treated more like a burns patient towards the end thanks to GHD. I think it was spent on some special type of bandage scissors (GHD can cause the loss of large areas of skin) and the daily bandage changes were made awkward by the scissors the ward already had, IIRC.

I think re selfies, it'll become more acceptable, and will broaden out into "Here's a pic of my dog/bum/eye I just donated to Hearing Dogs/bowel cancer/glaucoma. Hopefully people will learn to discriminate between mindless selfies and ones that actually show donations and info and act accordingly.

Like, if just 1% of people looking at a glaucoma selfie think: "What the hell is glaucoma? I'll just have a look...never heard of it....sounds awful, there's a quid," then that's all grist to the mill.

I had no idea about CRUK not being the umbrella org it claims to be, and will donate more to smaller, more targeted charities from now on.

My DP had melanoma lat year and he really did battle. It was a battle worth fighting, he has come through well, keeping mentally strong, never giving up hope and focussing on trying to be positive.

I never used to understand the significance of cancer and battling before, but it does seem like an appropriate word to me now.

The no make up selfie helped raise 1million pound for cancer research in 24 hours.

I personally think why not? Think what they can do with that money. It made me donate for the first time in six months. Life takes over, and people forget things. I lost my grandfather to cancer and even i will admit it's not on my mind all the time.

It's a bit of fun. No one got hurt, and cancer research got a lot of money from it. It may not be the most tasteful way to raise money, but it works xx

Cheers daisy. So if/when I die, you will tell my daughter that her mummy didn't fight hard enough?

The 'Ccks in socks thing is awful. Taking things too far.....

People can raise money however they want, they can post whatever pictures of themselves they wish.

What they are not entitled to however is my respectful silence in the face of something I find irritating and narcissistic.

Interesting that Facebook removes any picture women try to put up of mastectomy scars etc. A bit too much reality for them.

DS1 is 14 and I don't want pictures of blokes with their willies in socks all over his FB.

Many of the selfies are of ladies undergoing cancer treatment, bald, afraid enduring but sharing. It is saying look this is reality not 'tickled pink' or pretty bows. Then other women posted no makeup selfies as a gesture of solidarity, not bald but barefaced as they wouldn't be seen normally. I didn't understand at first, i posted a 'selfie' then removed it after I had made my donation. Cancer touches all of us sometimes and we do what we can. I lost my mum, my aunts, my cousins and one of my best friends to it. The message is to get younger women to check their breasts and that can only be good. My breast cancer was 7 and a half years ago. I am lucky, I am here.

Well I was dubious about the 'no makeup selfie' too.... After 5 of my very lovely and totally non-narcissistic friends did it I finally thought, sod it why not. So I've just done it and donated money to Cancer Research too. I dedicated my rather shambolic photo to the memory of my mum who died from breast cancer, aged 40, when I was just 12. Does it really matter how the money is raised? As far as I'm concerned my £3 has gone to a good cause to help fight this terrible disease and that's all that matters...

I think that social media and campaigns as you mentioned are the way it's going as the younger generations are growing up in this world. Internet crazes and memes are the rage and it's just the way we have evolved. People of today like to sit at computer or somewhere relaxed and do their thing online, we may not agree but it's how it is and I think that however money is raised is great, I doubt any charity would decline donations on the basis that is was raised by a few self absorbed pouting selfies. :)

The slefie photos eventually raised money, but only after a lot of criticism that money wasn't being donated.

My plea, is that you consider giving money to the smaller charities that raise money for research into a specific cancer. Paediatric cancers are hugely under-researched when compared to the big 4 - breast, prostate, colon and the leukaemias.

Bone tumours predominate in 10-20 year olds, and less than half of those kids will survive to 5 years. CRUK funds very little basic scientific research (ie looking at potential cellular targets) in paediatric cancers.

Women with breast cancer are very vocal, mae a lot of fuss about their cancer and subsequently raise a lot of money. Parents of children are too busy, too distressed and too exhausted to match that level f fundraising :(

I posted a selfie of me, bald from chemo with my DC3. She was 7 months yesterday. I'm not going to apologise for trying to highlight the reality of my cancer, even though it's the popular one. Unfortunately for me, I am BRCA+ and have triple negative breast cancer. That's the one where the prognosis is much less than the trumpeted 80/85%.
I agree that the lesser known cancers should attract more funding - I donate to Maggie's Centres who do a great job supporting us people with cancer and our families.

Good point highlander. What would be good now is to say, right CRUK have their £2mil (very little of which will go to research but hey ho). Let's start donating to smaller, less well-known charities....

CRUK have had a huge amount of money, lots of which gets eaten up in overheads and marketing. And still they are trotting out the same 'one day we will beat cancer'. Which cancer is that? There are hundreds of different types.

Let's give the smaller, targeted charities more support now!

Highlander - That's interesting as I always wonder with these things how many people join in with the fun online stuff but don't actually donate money.

If anyone can post links evaluating what Cancer Research do and whether too much is spent on admin etc I would be interested to read.

You can find out any charities admin costs via their annual report and accounts which should be on their website. I won't donate to Macmillian as they spend an unbelievable amount on fundraising, almost double what they spend on nurses.

According to wiki, they spend about 70% directly on research and about 30% on admin, campaigning, advertising and hold some reserve money. About 4000 researchers are funded by them.

I am sad to see so many people negative about the work of CRUK, I have to admit I knew more about their work a decade or so ago when they were the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, but I have many friends who have worked on them particularly evaluating the now adopted bowel screening programme and also on the HPV jab for cervical cancer. I know less about their work now, but these were not 'glamorous' or common cancers- and the HPV work was controversial as it showed that cancer was linked to sexual activity (if you hadn't had sex, you would not have HPV) which at the time was a very difficult message for the public to hear.

I am not defending them now as I know little of their current work, and I am also not saying they alone developed these screening programmes, they were part of larger international groups as well- but those past successes are perhaps quite easily forgotten, as we take for granted everyone over the age of 50 can have bowel screening, or all children have the HPV jab by a certain age- even 15 years ago, this was not the case, and they were part of that success.

Also pisses me off the narrative about battling, fighting, beating cancer. My mother fought like hell. She's been dead six months now, from Non Hodgekins Lymphoma.

I don't like the new 'campaigns' at all.

KitKat1985 My father also has Multiple Myeloma. No one that I mention it to, has every heard of it .