Hey, wring: Isn’t something that is less surprising also less tragic? One of the things that makes a death tragic is that it is unexpected. I don’t think the difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is all that significant.
Is there any other fatal illness that we always seem to qualify in this way? Does anyone say: He had AIDS, but he never went to bath houses. He had a heart attack, but never drank whole milk or ate fatty steaks.
Yes, I understand why “she was not a smoker” is reported, but that doesn’t mean I don’t also see it as an implicit assumption that is, at best, people are less surprised when a smoker dies of lung cancer, and therefore might see it as less tragic.
Heh, I’m still waiting for someone to say that Sheryl Crow and Kylie Minogue just needed to have a few babies and breastfeed them, or that all those people with colon cancer should have been on low fat, high fibre diets.
It is very sad that Dana Reeves died and that her 13 year old son is orphaned.
It would still be very sad if she’d smoked like a train all her life.
People like to feel in control, like to have something to blame, like to deny reality and pretend that if they do the “right” things they’ll live forever. It’s human nature.
It’s why we find athletes dropping dead from heart attacks and “good” people dying of diseases they didn’t “deserve” hard to deal with…if it can happen to them, it could happen to you.
This impulse to know whether someone is in some way to blame for their own demise is understandable, but it is not something we should be proud of.
Before the smokers hammer some more nails into their cross, it should be noted that reporting of traffic fatalities generally features information on whether the driver/passengers were using their seatbelts. You can debate the need to incorporate public health commentary into such stories, but smokers are not the only ones singled out for attention.
And yes, I do feel bad when I diagnose new cases of lung cancer in smokers. One of my colleagues had a new case last week involving a woman in her 40s. Her husband is already on chemotherapy for lung cancer.
But many states have mandatory seat belt laws, so that’s often pertinent to the story. Your point does have some validity, but I don’t think it’s quite the same.
I have to say, when I saw this on the news, I was kinda irritated that it was presented as an almost unique occurence, as if only smokers get lung cancer. Does anyone have stats on the number of lung cancer cases where the person did not smoke? Hopefully with some age brackets also…
I guess to me, tragic is definately different than surprising. For example, while any death is in some sense tragic to those concerned, a younger person’s death is seen as more tragic than an older persons, although if the older person was about to win the Nobel Peace Prize and failed to live to see the moment, that might heighten the tragic quotient.
well, yes, some folks do indeed say “she was in great shape and yet she had a heart attack” I recall thinking that very same thing about a friend of my parents, the most active and in shape of the group and yet she was the first to die. It was surprising, tragic for her family I’m sure, but not tragic in the greater universal sense IMHO, ironic, sure. tragic, not so much.
Again, for me, in some sense of the word and especially for those personally involved, all deaths are tragic. My parents deaths were tragic to me, but not in the greater sense of the word and to the world at large. My fathers was not at all surprising (he was 83, in poor health), my mothers was (she was 64, and although she had several risk factors, she’d not complained of not feeling well). My sister’s death was not surprising (She had a genetic, always fatal disease) but was tragic, and, I think, in the universal sense- she was only 5 years old, and it was a slow and painful way to go.
See?
Q.E.D. - just FYI and all (no snideness intended), I’m female so the “focus, man” is technically not achievable for me. and for me, the “didn’t you read that” is pretty high up on the snide meter. If you didn’t mean it thusly, ratchet my comments back to you a notch or two accordingly.
Hell, I’ll admit it freely: had she been a smoker, her death by lung cancer would warrant a “yep, that sounds about right” from me while her status as a non-smoker gets more of a “huh, that’s a little unusual.” And I know about non-tobacco causes of lung cancer, including radon exposure and whatnot.
Want me to weep for a smoker who gets lung cancer? Not gonna happen. I don’t equate the tragedy levels of Dana Reeve and Chimney McSmoker, though I’m not exactly broken up about the former since I never met her.
It’s been reported that as many as 10% or so of lung cancer cases are due to residential radon exposure. I’m not certain if such data reflects current knowledge about secondhand smoke exposure which may have been involved in some of these cases.
True, but I have seen seat belt use mentioned in news reports in connection with fatalities prior to seat belt laws and in states that lack them. It’s a potentially reportable piece of information, but a bit preachy in tone as well.
Lung cancer is divided up into different types, based on the type of cells the cancers cells mutated from, and the appearance of the cells under the microscope.
Tumours are classified as Small cell and Non small cell Lung cancer (SCLC and NSCLC).
NSCLC is then further divided into:
Adenocarcinoma, which has further subtypes
Squamous carcinoma
Large cell Lung cancer
There are other rare types of cancer that affects the lungs (carcinoid, mesothelioma, etc).
Adeno carcinoma is caused by cigarette smoking in most cases, but it is also the type of lung cancer found most often in non-smokers, never-smokers, women and the under 45s. As this website explains, smoking increases your chance of getting adenocarcinoma 13 times, but by no means is it impossible to find adenocarcinoma in someone with no history of smoking or exposure to other risks.
Fair enough. I didn’t mean it as a snide remark, per se, only as a somewhat sarcastic rebuke for apparently misunderstanding the post you were quoting. Seemed to me he said one thing and you jumped on his back for saying another. I felt your “Bullshit” was uncalled for.
It’s all good, now. Explanations have been proferred and everyone understands everyone else.
I feel bad for people who die younger than forecast (life expectancy)…
…but there is some internal component that let’s me feel less bad (less sympathy) if the person was stacking the odds against themselves. I call this internal component my brain, because it is the same internal component that figures into how I live my life…sticking to a certain number of calories, not smoking, avoiding excessive use of alcohol, etc.
My dad, my uncle and some others: The PAIN I experience from their death is WORSE because they smoked and died from cancer (pancreatic and lung respectively). The sympathy I could extend to someone who drove their car towards an early grave is slightly lessened. My PAIN: Worse. Sympathy: Less.
How about gay people who die of AIDS? How about fat people who have heart attacks? Are not people like this in your family? In your circle of friends? Do you grieve less when a friend dies of some preventable cause?
When a woman contracts AIDS, often the first thing you’ll hear is that she got it from heterosexual sex. The surge in HIV infections among women has been getting a lot of press, IMHO, because it is seen as being more “tragic” than HIV among gay guys. Many of these women are having straight sex, a lot of times from their cheating, “down low” husbands.
Is it more tragic if a woman contracts HIV from her husband than if her husband contracts it from his male “fuck buddy”? I’d say yes. It is generally safe to assume–in the absence of incriminating evidence–that your spouse is monogamous and free of STDs (excluding those contracted prior to marriage). So it is doubly tragic to find out that not only did your husband cheat on you, but that he also gave you a deadly disease.
There’s only one tragedy in the cheating husband scenario. And depending on your perspective, that tragedy may not be all that tragic.
I know when I read those descriptions of the Darwin Award winners, I don’t feel a lot of sympathy. I roll my eyes and laugh.
Do you?
I’m not saying the people you describe above are Darwin Award winners, but where do you draw the line? Either we view all death as equally sad and tragic, or we admit that some ways of dying are simply sadder than others. If there isn’t much of a difference in the “sad quotient” between the morbidly person and a skinny person dying of a heart attack, is there a difference in the case of a pedestrian mowed down by a car while standing at the crosswalk and a pedestrian killed because he decided to run across a busy road at midnight? If you don’t think there is, what’s your line of reasoning? (Actually, I’m conflicted on this question. I think there isn’t much of a difference between a fat and skinny person croaking over heart attack, but I do see a huge difference between the two pedestrians. I don’t know why the two comparisons seem so hugely different to me.)
I have an overweight mother who doesn’t watch what she eats and doesn’t exercise. If she dies from the complications of her lifestyle, I will be both sad and angry at her. I admit that I would only be intensely sad if she were hit by a bus or struck by lightening, even though the end result would be the same. Does that make me a bad person? Is it even possible for me to change how I would react?
I would admit ‘yes,’ but I suspect reasonable discussion violates some sort of Pit policy. As Vincent VanGough pointed out ‘All of art is knowing where to draw the line.’
