SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.

Why It's Harmful to Describe Cancer as a "War"

Why It's Harmful to Describe Cancer as a "War" 1
8
"This is about state rights!"
When people talk about cancer, they often resort to the language of war – e.g. Mary lost her brave fight with cancer. Many compelling objections have been made against the use of such "battle metaphors," and a growing body of evidence suggests that, for some people, they can actually be harmful.
Above: American Civil War, Union captures Fort Fisher, 1865 | Via LoC
"The message that people get from the media and from charity campaigns is that they have to 'fight' and 'beat' their cancer," says Elena Semino, Professor of Linguistics and Verbal Art at Lancaster University's ESRC Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social Science, in a statement:
Although well meaning, the effect of using war metaphors like this can be damaging to some people ... If people are diagnosed with terminal cancer, then they are spoken of as 'losing their battle'. Many patients are unhappy with their illness being discussed in this way. Blame is being put on the patient, and there's almost a sense that, if you are dying, you must have given up and not have fought hard enough.
Perhaps you have never been in a real-life, actual fight or battle. Kindly allow me to explain, then, that a fight, battle, war, skirmish, or what-the-fuck-ever else you want to call it, is something that either adversary reasonably could win with superior manpower and/or firepower. Kindly allow me also to remind you that there is no cure for cancer. That's why it's not, you know, called "Breast-itis" or "Seasonal Pancreatic Syndrome" or "Bone Marrow Allergies." It's fucking cancer. And no one has come up with anything like, oh, a CURE, that—in keeping with your battle metaphor—can be compared to superior firepower.
That leaves us with superior manpower. Are you really fucking going there? Are you truly comfortable telling a cancer patient that, if his cancer doesn't GTFO stat, it's because he didn't try hard enough?
Semino, who has been studying the use of metaphors in the way we talk about cancer since 2012, does note that "for some patients, some of the time, the idea of being engaged in a fight" can be motivating. I think the real takeaway, as she put it, is that " we are all different, and different metaphors work for different people, and at different times" – but it is imperative that one be cognizant of that fact, when speaking with someone about their terminal illness, while discussing their cancer as a perplexing and poorly understood biological process, or when writing about them, after they're gone.
[ESRC]
Like
Like
173172
Discussions from People followed by Robbie GonzalezRobbie Gonzalez’s DiscussionsPopular Discussion
All replies
The following replies are approved. To see additional replies that are pending approval, click Show Pending. Warning: These may contain graphic material.
Warning: Replies that are pending approval may contain graphic material.
Please proceed with caution.
When someone "loses their fight," I don't think most people are implying that anything was their fault. Rather, they employ the metaphor to say that the patient was brave. Society used to pin honor and bravery on warriors — and even a loss requires extreme amounts of bravery.
It might be a hard notion for PC-minded control freaks to understand, but Klingons would appreciate the value in the saying I'm sure.
Flagged
Rather, they employ the metaphor to say that the patient was brave.
Yeah, except that's still a rather shitty thing to put on people, because "brave" too often hits my ear as "didn't make us uncomfortable by being sad, or angry or depressed". A few years back, I had a serious cancer scare — a suspected brain tumour, no less and it was terrifying. My partner, bless him, didn't put the expectation of bravery on me and it really mattered.
Flagged
You forget that one viable and rational reaction to cancer, once all information is gathered, is to deny treatment and accept imminent death. The "war" and "survivor" crap does heavily imply those people are losers and should feel guilty for not "fighting".
And as far as how cancer patients on the "losing" end feel, I'm sure it varies. The rhetoric does imply they are losing their fight and explicitly credits "survivors" as having superior qualities. It really doesn't matter what people's intentions are. It's not about how so-and-so feels when "trying to help" as an "awareness" cheerleader. It's about how the patient feels. If the rhetoric makes a patient feel like crap, you shouldn't be patting yourself on the back.
Flagged
Plus, war, huh yeah. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
Also things that can go? 99% of breast cancer related rhetoric that focuses on the breasts more, dehumanizes the woman, and helps demonize lifesaving procedures like mastectomies.
Flagged
Mastectomies are over rated. The vast majority of women could get by just fine with lumpectomies and radiation, but the pendulum is currently swinging the other way.
Flagged
I think we overuse war metaphors in everything. There are very few places that it actually works and even in places where we think it should work, it doesn't. For instance, calling it "The War on Terror". We may as well declare war on the sun.
Flagged
I have a friend who is an ex-Green Beret (now a college professor) and who had a real problem with the "War on Terror" label - he compared it to declaring war on bullets.
Flagged
Pretty much the entire way cancer is framed around "survivors" and "fighting" is awful toward those who don't survive, but more importantly (since dead people don't care) disparaging toward those who choose not to "fight."
It sucks that doctors and charities and family members and other people there to "help" are being trained by the rather large "awareness" industry (can we really call that portion a charity at this point?), economic incentives, and bullshit "positive thinking" philosophy to guilt people into treating cancer no matter what the odds, what the costs. Sometimes it's rational to choose to forgo the "fight"; doctors should be neutral about it and everybody else should mind their own goddamn business.
Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but I don't even think the people pushing the "war" metaphors even mean well at this point (aside from perhaps meddling family members). Non-profits are just finding the "uplifting" language (as well as diversion of funds to marketing and "awareness" to bring in more donations (which is well-meaning at its roots, but distorts the whole thing); doctors are either looking for profit or treating the Hippocratic Oath like some weird fundamentalist religion (also well-menaing at its roots but distorted); and "positive thinking" philosophers are a mix of cynical charlatans and useful idiots perpetuating a status quo bias.
Flagged
Phrased pretty much exactly here. "That's no way to end your life, 'What a loser that guy was!...You gotta give it to the bowel cancer...''"
http://www.cc.com/shows/norm-mac... Macdonald: Me Doing Stand-Up
Get More: http://www.cc.com/stand-up">Watc... More Stand-Up.
Flagged
It's not just war and battle, awareness campaigns seem to be required by law to resort to personification of the disease in question, like the current "Stand Up to Cancer." It gives the impression that cancer is a schoolyard bully or something, and if we all show solidarity it will slink away defeated. I don't mean to say that positive attitude is irrelevant in fighting cancer, but this increasing tendency to put our collective emotional reaction to a problem front and center just rubs me the wrong way. Happy thoughts are not solutions unto themselves, and when we sell this notion it's dangerously close to magical thinking.
Flagged
I don't mean to say that positive attitude is irrelevant in fighting cancer, but this increasing tendency to put our collective emotional reaction to a problem front and center just rubs me the wrong way. Happy thoughts are not solutions unto themselves, and when we sell this notion it's dangerously close to magical thinking.
It's also a really nice way to avoid awkward questions about who does — and doesn't — get reliable access to high quality oncology services. And why. Pink ribbons and a good attitude don't mean shit if you just can't afford to go to the doctor to check out that odd lump on your breast or urinary problems that could indicate prostate cancer.
Flagged
On the other hand, while cancer cannot be cured in every case, it can be survived in many cases. I was diagnosed with a retinal melanoma at age 16; experimental treatments put it into remission when I was 18, and it's remained in remission for 28 years with no sign of returning. So yes, fighting cancer can succeed. It's silly to shame someone for losing a fight against such a disease, of course, but that doesn't mean it's futile to wage the fight.
Flagged
So yes, fighting cancer can succeed. It's silly to shame someone for losing a fight against such a disease, of course, but that doesn't mean it's futile to wage the fight.
Except sometimes it really really is, and shaming people for deciding their own treatment options (which includes not being treated at all) is a really shitty thing to do. I had a good friend whose breast cancer recurred and she took all the advice on board and decided she wasn't willing to undergo another round of psychologically and physically traumatic treatment with significant downsides for her quality of life with very low odds of success. As far as I'm concerned, that didn't make her any kind of coward and she needed care and support not judgement and emotional auditing. Thankfully, that was mostly what she got. It's what everyone should have.
Flagged
The National Film Board of Canada released a documentary in 2011 called Pink Ribbons Inc. that covers the perverse or suspicious side of "the fight against cancer" and it does cover the effect of this metaphor on terminal patients. Worth the watch:
Flagged
During the 1980s there was a bit of a pop-culture trend towards athletes, political activists, people with disabilities and so-on being described as "warriors". It was basically an offshoot of the New Age movement via Carlos Castaneda and the martial arts movie craze. I agree that martial metaphors can be useful and effective under certain circumstances and also that they have limits and drawbacks.
Flagged
Incorrect use of the word warrior is one of my rage triggers.
Sports people are athletes. Even pro fighters. And thats an awesome thing to be. Warriors are people who go to war. Not metaphoric war. Real war. Thats not really that awesome.
Flagged
That leaves us with superior manpower. Are you really fucking going there? Are you truly comfortable telling a cancer patient that, if his cancer doesn't GTFO stat, it's because he didn't try hard enough?
Exactly — and here's a related point. It's too fucking easy to be brave with other people's lives, but you try it when you're in the middle of combination chemo and radiation therapy and facing yet another day of retching air and feeling like every fucking vein and nerve ending is on fire.
And how dare you fucking deny people with cancer the right to be angry, or depressed or just plain not really being focused on making you feel comfortable?
Flagged
A lot of people in the young breast cancer communities have been saying this for a long time. Particularly in regards to being referred to as "survivors" or having "beaten" it. When people ask me how my sister is doing, I just say that she's x number of years NED and doing well.
Flagged
Hosts of other popular chats
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%