RSS
 

Why Breast Cancer (part 2)

12 Oct

Last night I asked the question:

Why does one disease that causes 2% of deaths every year get more attention than all other causes of death?

Breast cancer ribbons are on license plates, political buildings, food products, and apparently even football player uniforms. But it causes 2% of deaths. The leading cause of death kills 20 times as many people. That leading cause of death – that which kills more humans in America is abortion.

All things being equal, we should put our most effort into fighting the leading cause of death (abortion) – 20 times the effort we put into breast cancer awareness. For every breast cancer ribbon, there ought to be 15  heart disease ribbons. For every “I love boobies” bumper stickers, there should be two “I love people who don’t remember me” bumper stickers to promote Alzheimer’s disease which kills nearly twice as many people every year.

But we don’t – we don’t walk twenty miles against abortion for every one mile we walk against breast cancer.

So something is not equal. What are the factors?

Last night I speculated that one factor was the sexualization of culture. It’s about breasts, so we care. I also wrote that we wrongly tend to get our self-image and confidence as a man or woman based on our physical appearances, and for a disease to attack one very clear symbol of being a woman is for the disease to attack our frail self-view.

But I missed what may be the biggest factor.

This morning a friend read my blog post on Facebook and wrote

…Cancer also moves people because it is scary – there may be some ways to reduce your risk, but it is not nearly as preventable as say heart disease which is the #1 killer. We know that diet, exercise, maintenance of an appropriate BMI, etc..will drastically reduce risk of heart disease and stroke but there is no such “simple” formula for breast cancer prevention. It affects women of all ages, races, socioeconomic status and is very likely to significantly affect one of your loved ones (and mine)…

By the numbers, we all have more loved ones affected by heart disease and other killers than breast cancer, but about what makes it different from other diseases, I think she was right. Cancer is different than many diseases because they can be prevented. It’s a sneaky indiscriminate killer. It’s not a gang member that shoots you because you’re in the wrong part of town late at night. Like the flu and Alzheimer’s disease, it’s the killer that breaks into your home at night when you’re sleeping. These non-preventable diseases are scarier (though the argument could be made that it’s the preventable ones that need more awareness so people can prevent them).

Breast cancer can affect any adult woman, regardless of many factors, including health. It’s not a “fatty disease,” which could have been prevented or limited if someone kept themselves more attractive. It’s not a disease that only affects old people.

So why do we care more about deaths caused by breast cancer than anything else, including other non-preventable diseases like Alzheimer’s and the flu? From this perspective, because we value the lives of the people affected more than we value the lives of those killed by other causes. We value the lives of pretty young women more than the lives of fat old men.

The message we communicate by the emphasis on breast cancer is thus:

  • Your life is more valuable if you are a woman, and less valuable if you are a man.
  • Your life is more valuable if you are young, and less valuable if you are old.
  • Your life is more valuable if you are skinny, and less valuable if you are overweight.
  • Your life is more valuable if you are a mother, and less valuable if you are a father.
  • Your life is more valuable if you are an adult, and less valuable if you are aren’t born yet.

Perhaps this is incorrect – leave a comment and let me know so we can figure out this riddle: why does the 2% killer get more attention than everything else.

Again – I’m not downplaying breast cancer, or breast cancer awareness. I’m just trying to figure out the disproportionate attention which seems to communicate that the 2% of people who die of breast cancer are more significant than the other 98% of humans who die every year.

 
 

Tags: , , , ,

  • Samantha

    My post first began with me thinking that people thought of breast cancer as a almost feminist issue, one more way that women are worse off than men. But then I looked at the numbers of testicular cancer and prostate cancer. While testicular cancer has low rates, prostate cancer has a death rate similar to breast cancer 32,050 per year. So while I do not completely disregard my first thought, I have another- No man is going to wear a T-shirt that says “I survived Prostate cancer” and testicular cancer is even worse for a man to talk about. So men are not bringing their issues to the forefront themselves, because they find them embarrassing to talk about.

    A woman decided to work towards a cure in honor of her sister. once breast cancer started to receive more publicity people probably assumed the risk of dying of breast cancer was greater than it is. Women in general may feel more emotion towards breast cancer, cause well… we have breasts and are more likely to get breast cancer (although many of us have a very very small risk).

    I also think that people like to find community even if it is in something as silly as a pink ribbon.

  • Mia Engel

    equality does on exist, that’s why breast cancer gets a lot of attention & why it seems like women are more valuable than men & the young more valuable than the old.

    also, men can get breast cancer also so i don’t think that breast cancer awareness completely excludes men because they are in danger of getting it.

  • Samantha

    I know this should not annoy me, but I hate that my comment is waiting for moderation-

  • Lori Engel

    Samantha I read your comment on the blog and I thought it was good. 🙂
    Jon good posts both of them…I would tend to agree with Mia from her first post that rather than wear a bracelet with boobies on it for awareness-is anyone not aware of breast cancer? Maybe we could take the time to love someone affected by breast cancer and donate money to an organization that is working for a cure of many cancers.

  • Lindsey

    Something I was thinking this a.m. – we seem to be wired to want to do something productive with our grief. This is why there is an organization/fundraiser for everything from suicide prevention to Mother Against Drunk Driving to the I Love You Guys foundation (you might familiar from KHOW). If someone’s child gets sick with cystic fibrosis, they are very likely to become an expert, an advocate, a person on a mission for a cure both to benefit that child and other families suffering because of this awful disease. I would not criticize that passion because cystic fibrosis is not the number one killer of children. There are many causes of suffering that as humans we are driven to address. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive because of prevalence.

    • That makes sense. It makes sense to me that if I lost a child to fatal hangnail disease, I might then be on a crusade against hang nails.

      I’m not criticizing anyone for being passionate against anything that isn’t the #1 killer. I’m seeking to find out why it’s so disproportionate. Personal-affectedness doesn’t explain it.

      By definition, more people are affected by the #1 killer than the #2 killer, and so on. So by reason of personal-affectedness driving personal-advocacy, the advocacy would be a perfect mirror of the numbers. 15 times as many family members die to heart disease as compared to breast cancer, so by personal-affectedness, there should be 15 “I love hearts” bumper stickers for every “I love boobies” bumper sticker.

  • Samantha

    But people’s brains do not work that way. I just finished reading an article about the Chilean men being rescued from the mine. It is a beautiful story. So many people all over the world worked to get these men out alive and as well as can be.
    But what came to mind is that so much effort is being put forth to save these men (less than 40) and millions of babies are being aborted every year. Where is the world wide concern for these babies?What if that kind of effort was out forth to save the unborn? But the issue of the unborn does not touch the heart strings of people (which disturbs me as I type it) and the Chilean miners does. I think that breast cancer might be a heart string issue for some people. Women dying for a body part that is mostly ornamental.

  • Breast cancer kills men, too. Now there’s something that could use an awareness campaign. I’m pretty sure we don’t need to contribute any more money to “breast cancer awareness”. Prevention, sure. But awareness? Or even research? Probably not necessary.