Yes, you’ve already stated that opinion. Repeating it doesn’t make it more compelling as an argument.
Now, going back to the topic you started before. I’ve already stated that, as I believe research funds are limited, then an allocation to one cause will lead to less funds for other causes. I’m waiting for your counter to that, as you indicated that wasn’t true.
Others have stated it in simple terms:
It’s not a zero sum game.
Research in one area of cancer frequently has applications in other areas.
If you think that 74th is too high a position for prostate cancer funding, where do you suggest it should be? 146th? Eliminated?
And my post above explained at least 2 reasons why that was doody headed thinking.
I find it refreshing to read an article in favor of cancer, instead of all those strident screeds against it.
And sure, prostate cancer isn’t much of a cancer NOW. But give it time, let it grow, and some day it will be a Big Boy cancer like the others.
We should all be privileged enough to get it. After all, it’s men’s special cancer.
I guess the point for me is that even with this supposed vast difference in funding, you still see more deaths from breast cancer. And there are some pretty big differences in average age as well.
This thread kind of makes the point in my view, in that people have a tendency to view the two as roughly equivalent, which is probably partly due to things like Movember, ie its a heuristic due to the publicity it gets, rather than analysis of actual risk.
As to the idea that ‘something unexpectedly good’ could come out of it, I dont see how that argument wouldnt also apply to the many other underfunded health issues out there, with much higher mortality rates.
Otara
Charity itself is not a zero-sum game for most donors, either. If I give $10 to breast cancer, that doesn’t mean I will give X-$10 to whatever else I was planning to donate to charity this year. Most donors simply don’t budget their charity that way. I’ve talked to a few donors here who might say “I’ll see how I’m doing after Christmas and decide what I can send”, but I’ve never seen anyone say, “Nope, can’t give anything at all because I already donated my year’s budget to Charity X.”
Thats because the number of deaths is due to two things. The number of people that have it. And the fact its not totally “curable” (statitistically speaking).
How curable it is and how “cureable” it will become is a function of the level of funding, and or luck, and or results from other related research
These two factors really aren’t that related. You could throw all the money in the world at breast cancer research and it might not make any difference. Like all problems you have to ask two things. How much CAN we spend? And whats the minimum we can spend that will at least make SOME forward progress in the field. And the funding answer is somewhere between those two numbers.
Being pro-cancer is getting more respectable these days. Why, a restaurant not too far from where I live has a big annual Cancer Gala!
No, he doesn’t. Prostate cancer may be more treatable than many, but that doesn’t make it enjoyable, inexpensive, painless, or lacking in unpleasant non-fatal side effects. I survived it, but my cousin didn’t. The money individuals, governments, and insurance companies spend on radical prostatectomies, radiation therapy, and other forms of treatment is significant. Raising money for research to eliminate this disease could reduce death, reduce suffering, and reduce health costs.
No. He doesn’t have a damned point.
How about this:
[QUOTE=The article]
The Movember people brag that their cause, fuelled by the Internet and well-meaning well-to-do people, has raised $176 million worldwide so far. Unfortunately, that’s $176 million taken away from more pressing issues in the world than prostate cancer, largely, I imagine, from individual donors, rather than governments or corporations.
[/QUOTE]
He’s saying that money spent on trying to eliminate the disease I had to get treated for last year should have been spent on different diseases, and his rationale is that I’m “privileged” because I live in the U.S.
He’s an uninformed asshole who failed to correctly interpret what little real data he actually had.
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:49, topic:602462”]
He’s an uninformed asshole who failed to correctly interpret what little real data he actually had.
[/QUOTE]
Well, to be fair he is 22 years old. I suspect I was well past 30 before I said anything worth listening to 
Call me crazy, but maybe the paper shouldn’t have printed a bunch of ill-thought-out ranting by a guy who doesn’t know anything. A good columnist doesn’t just run off at the mouth like an idiot.
“Paper”? “Printed”? Surely this is some online-only blog posting, not an actual printed article.
Just because the page refers to “The Link” which is “Concordia’s Independent Newspaper” (that should tell you something right there) doesn’t mean that even they actually printed this drivel.
Roddy
ETA: people laugh at printed newspapers as archaic and so on, but at least if someone is going to go to the expense of publishing something on paper, you can bet it will get at least minimal screening for coherence and lack of general ass-hattery.
EATA: I forgot to call you crazy.
I’m not sure if you’re being facetious or not, but The Link is the student newspaper of Concordia University in Montreal. It seems like it has a print edition.
And you’ve either missed or refused to address my point the whole time. Good job.
Couple of quibbles.
I agree that focusing resourses and the biggest problems is a logical poistion. But this doesn’t mean that other problems should be ignored, which* kinda sounds *like what you are suggesting. Maybe that’s not what you meant.
There are lots of researchers in a lot of places all over the world. If they were all focused on the top 5 cancers in terms of death rate, there will probably be needless duplication of effort. (that problem may already exist, I don’t know) The research worldwide isn’t really coordinated.
As **Truman Burbank **pointed out
It is entirely possible that research into one type of cancer may provide the link to curing other, more pervasive cancers.
Also, I do not believ it is a zero sum game. The movement may inspire some people to donate who would not normally do so. Prostate cancer surviors, sufferers, friends and family members may be willing to donate to this where they have never dontaed before.
If he has it point, it might easily be hidden by a hat.
He has no “reasonable, logical” point because his postulates cannot be organized into any sort of consistent and compelling argument.
Do you honestly believe that when the October appeals for breast cancer research funding come out, there are going to be people saying, “Oh, geez. Sorry, I’d love to, but I gave twenty bucks for prostate cancer research eleven months ago - I’m tapped out.” No, in order to even begin thinking about funds that are spent on X taking away from Y, you need to reduce and abstract things so far that your scenario has absolutely no relation to the real world.
Even if you can swallow that, the idea that breast cancer is a significantly more pressing concern than prostate cancer and that they should be attended to in a priority sequence is nonsensical for multiple reasons. First, if you apply that logic consistently and measure the seriousness of these two forms of cancer in the context of other illnesses which require research dollars, you’ll see that they are actually just about perfectly equivalent. What is not equivalent is their comparative levels of funding.
Again, even if you accept that breast cancer is significantly worse than prostate cancer with some sort of shaky logic such as “There are about 39,520 deaths from breast cancer in the US annually, and only 33,720 deaths from prostate cancer, so curing breast cancer first would save almost 6000 more lives each year,” it is nonsensical to try to earmark funds which might otherwise be spent on the lesser evil for the benefit of the greater one - because (again) this abstracts and reduces something as complex as the entire world into something so simplistic that it has absolutely no relationship to reality.
Last year, the NCI raised $630 million for breast cancer research, and $300 million for prostate cancer research. Even if the argument that the money raised for prostate cancer “takes away” from funds which might otherwise be spent on breast cancer research was logically supportable in any kind of meaningful way, (which it manifestly is not,) what do you suppose would happen if they’d instead raised $930 million for breast cancer and $0 for prostate cancer? Answer: No progress on prostate cancer, and the same amount of research for breast cancer. It’s not as though money itself is going to cure cancer, and it’s nonsense to think that people working in parallel on other types of diseases somehow negatively impacts breast cancer research.
This young man takes what might otherwise be a merely comically simple-minded idea about how fundraising works in a world with legions of problems and legions of charities addressing them, and elevates it to a level of astonishing idiocy by bringing in the idea of “male privilege” as something that ought to be considered when allocating our donations, as though the fickle finger of prostate cancer only settled on an entitled, comfortable, and unsympathetic overclass of male oppressors, in no way affecting anyone else who might be inconvenienced or troubled by their illness or death.
Yes, even if you accept the idea that canvassing for the one cause has measurable effect on the another (which is an unsupportable, crack-brained idea,) or that flat-out transferring the funds from one to another would speed a cure (which is similarly addled,) let’s then spend energy trying to determine which illnesses ought to be researched first based on notions of which effected class, gender, or ethnicity is generally agreed to be most disadvantaged. Oh, sorry, breast cancer - you’re gonna have to wait.
Not only does this young man not have a valid point, but his reasoning is so absurdly flawed that even a paint-huffing Scientologist ought to be able to recognize it as the sort of insight which can only be inspired by the blinding white light of pure, unadulterated idiocy.
I wonder how the author feels about raising awareness of stuff like gender pay equality, workplace sexual harassment, etc? I would assume he considers it a waste of resources by privileged white women, since that effort could instead help stop female genital mutilation or the stoning of women accused of adultery - if not, I’m curious what he feels the distinction is between these situations.
The writer is also a member of the paper’s editorial staff.
… some more very good stuff…
I wish I’d said that.
<applause>
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:49, topic:602462”]
No, he doesn’t. Prostate cancer may be more treatable than many, but that doesn’t make it enjoyable, inexpensive, painless, or lacking in unpleasant non-fatal side effects. I survived it, but my cousin didn’t. The money individuals, governments, and insurance companies spend on radical prostatectomies, radiation therapy, and other forms of treatment is significant. Raising money for research to eliminate this disease could reduce death, reduce suffering, and reduce health costs.
[/QUOTE]
And did anyone claim that prostate cancer was “enjoyable, inexpensive, painless, or lacking in unpleasant non-fatal side effects”?
And who is arguing that research on this will not reduce death or suffering. The point is, could the same amount of money spent on diseases that cause greater amounts of suffering do more good. If there was infinite amounts to spend on all causes, fantastic. There’s not, so arguing that we should focus on the big ones is hardly that outlandish a proposal.