Thread: Is there something wrong with this phrase "Battle against cancer"? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029498
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
When I hear it said someone has died "after a long/etc battle against cancer", I sense something not quite right.
I don't know what exactly is wrong with it, other than being a euphemism and a cliche, and I wonder if anyone here shares my concern and can articualte it better.
I never hear of a battle against Alzheimer's or heart disease or old age.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I've got two family members "battling" cancer right now (no, they're not, hate that phrase) and I'll tell you what I don't like about it. It casts the whole illness into an antagonistic, "may the best man win" mode--and inevitably implies that someone who dies has failed. It suggests that if you were only a better warrior, you would win (=live). Basically, it puts the full responsibility for the outcome on the person plagued with cancer, which is a huge emotional burden to put on anybody. (And the idea of having to "battle" anything when cursed with the total body fatigue and pain of chemo is just.not.fair.)
The other diseases etc. you mention are considered things that happen TO you (well, maybe not heart disease, but probably more so than cancer) and so people get a pass on "battling" if they get stuck with those evils.
If I get cancer, I'm going to be damn angry with anybody who tries to cheerlead me into "battling" harder.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I've got two family members "battling" cancer right now (no, they're not, hate that phrase) and I'll tell you what I don't like about it. It casts the whole illness into an antagonistic, "may the best man win" mode--and inevitably implies that someone who dies has failed. It suggests that if you were only a better warrior, you would win (=live). Basically, it puts the full responsibility for the outcome on the person plagued with cancer, which is a huge emotional burden to put on anybody.
I'd never thought of it this way before. Thanks for posting this. I have something to chew on today.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
Why must the cause of death be publicly disclosed at all?
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
I am also bothered by the phrase "died of a massive heart attack". Is that an attempt to suggest that a lesser heart attack wouldn't have brought the person down?
[ 22. August 2015, 21:09: Message edited by: ldjjd ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I am also bothered by the phrase "died of a massive heart attack". Is that an attempt to suggest that a lesser heart attack wouldn't have brought the person down?
To me this suggests a first heart attack or a heart attack much worse than any that had preceded it.
Moo
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I believe I have heard the expression "battling heart disease".
Many people have minor heart attacks and survive.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
As a cancer survivor, I certainly wouldn't describe the disease as involving a battle. It definitely involved my dealing with emotional matters, and there was pain, discomfort, inconvenience, etc. Calling it a battle I won would give me undeserved credit for the outcome.
It was my physicians, much more than I, who should be credited with the successful treatment.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I never hear of a battle against Alzheimer's or heart disease or old age.
I think this figure of speech is not uncommon for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and ALS - when I search for the phrase "battle against ()" I get several hits on the first page in which it is used to describe an individual's experience.
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on
:
Having being diagnosed with (and treated for) cancer this year, I think Lamb Chopped has got it about right. I certainly never had a sense of "doing battle" - I just acted on the instructions of the doctors. Being blessed with many good people praying for me, I didn't feel the need to pray too much for myself. Following medical advice and prayer were my only input into the situation - hard to see that as engaging in a battle!
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The one I hear is 'courageous battle with...'. My best friend died in 1988 noncourageously. Another close buddy died 5 years ago this month. He did not do battle either. I have blamed funeral directors for the euphemisms. I have felt it contains elements of denial.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Do you ever get the sense that people are trying to co-opt you* into their inspira-porn? (* person with cancer) I mean, when they go on about how brave you are, or how you're battling it, or whatever. Once in a while we get this about our immigrant ministry ("what wonderful people you are, I could never do that") and it makes me want to upchuck. There's just no answer to people who want to make you into their own Lifetime movie special. In my experience, anyway.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
There has been a huge change in attitude towards cancer in my lifetime. It used to be the unnameable illness, or the "Big C." People delayed going to their doctor if they thought it might be cancer. It wasn't even clear if sufferers should be told they had cancer - families would go to great lengths to try to prevent someone from realising that they were dying. Obituaries referred to "a long illness."
And then there was a huge swing. Cancer was spoken of, screening programmes appeared, charities became high profile, people wore pink ribbons on their lapels.
A whole new language of cancer had to be created to replace the old silences - and what happened was that a new set of euphemisms appeared.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I too have never been overly keen on the public use of this phrase and like it even less when news reports come up with -- so and so has finally 'lost' their battle against cancer.
Yes, we all have the survival instinct giving us the desire to fight in clinging to life. Yes, the medical profession may see their role as soldiers fighting the good fight where death and disease is concerned. To project all this on to one person who has been given the news most would dread? Indeed seemingly ridiculous.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
My dad died of cancer. He pretty much ignored the fact he had it, declining anything but palliative treatment.
There was no 'battle', no 'struggle', just a stoic acceptance of his fate and a determination to do as much as possible for as long as possible. Which he did. Kudos.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I think some people will find insight and meaning in this phrase while others won't. It's also used in mental illness such as "my battle with depression."
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
I have seen people accept their cancer and maximise the quality of their lives through eschewing treatment, and catching up with people and activities they love.
I have seen people fight to the bitter end. To sacrifice quality to attain more time with family and friends. Chemo in the last week, radiotherapy the day before. And these people battled. They fought. They did not go quietly into the night. Their fight was not a losing fight against a disease that won. Their fight was to live a little longer- and these people won, each and every one.
And do you know which approach is the right one?
Both.
I fully support both.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I find it is perhaps better suited to things like depression, where it does really feel like you're battling against your own mind half the time. But I wonder if how favourably an illness is viewed relates to this - you don't hear about people battling with schizophrenia, just that they are schizophrenic, it has become their whole personality as far as others are concerned. Whereas it's understood that depression isn't the whole personality of someone with depression. I wonder if that also applies to cancer v Alzheimer's.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I've got two family members "battling" cancer right now (no, they're not, hate that phrase) and I'll tell you what I don't like about it. It casts the whole illness into an antagonistic, "may the best man win" mode--and inevitably implies that someone who dies has failed. It suggests that if you were only a better warrior, you would win (=live). Basically, it puts the full responsibility for the outcome on the person plagued with cancer, which is a huge emotional burden to put on anybody. (And the idea of having to "battle" anything when cursed with the total body fatigue and pain of chemo is just.not.fair.)
The other diseases etc. you mention are considered things that happen TO you (well, maybe not heart disease, but probably more so than cancer) and so people get a pass on "battling" if they get stuck with those evils.
If I get cancer, I'm going to be damn angry with anybody who tries to cheerlead me into "battling" harder.
Sorry, I don't agree with some of the implications you are drawing.
The main reason is to cast the cancer as something "other". There is something growing inside you that is not you.
As opposed to other conditions, which, I agree, are cast as something that happens to you, as a deterioration of your own body.
But I don't agree with your suggestions that this necessarily means that losing is seen as a sign of weakness or moral failing. That's an extra implication.
In fact, I'd go so far as suggest that the "battle" language isn't actually meant to achieve something, but is the result of the more general perception of the disease as "other" in the first place.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Maybe it's time to draw a distinction. If someone chooses to use the battle language about their own situation, fine, good, it's working for them. What I hate is where someone else applies it to the person, along with the "you're so brave" (as if they had any choice about it!) and "You're an inspiration to us all."
I haven't had cancer (yet) so I can't say whether I would choose to conceptualize it as something outside of me, apart from me. I DO have a genetic disorder which I consider a part of "me" and not an intruder, though I don't like it.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
I won't use the battle image, ever, and it certainly doesn't apply to me - I'm a coward by nature, and when I saw a bloody great truck called cancer bearing down on me, a battle was the last thing on my mind. I am much happier calling it an adventure because it took me by surprise, I had no idea what was going to happen next and despite some nasty suspicions, no idea how it was going to end. Mostly, it has been a spectator event, watching other people doing the battling for me. They are the people who deserve the credit for putting up a fight.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I agree with Lamb Chopped. I particularly don't like it when we hear that someone has cancer but "We're sure he'll beat it because he's a fighter." Sometimes applied to a little child who may not feel like fighting but notices that his parents expect him to. Is there any evidence that the person who lies in bed watching cartoons is more likely to die than the one who appears to be "fighting?"
Jimmy Carter was diagnosed with brain cancer recently and I love the things that he is saying to the press. "I'm perfectly at ease with whatever comes,” combined with mention that he is a Christian and his faith is a great help to him. So much more realistic than the usual bold declaration of how he's going to lick this thing.
It's so rare when a public figure, admired and known to be extremely intelligent, speaks of his faith and credits it with helping him through the bad times. What a powerful witness.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
I'm not crazy about the language of "The Event to End/Cure Cancer" myself. We all know that long after all the participants have bicycled to Portland, or run 10K in their undies, or whatever, there will still be cancer. All it does is make me feel resentful at being guilted into donating, 'cause the title makes it sound as if I don't, it must be because I'm too cheap to cure cancer.
And what Lamb Chopped said about which illnesses are "battles". If I ever said, "Hey, everybody, I'm battling hypertension!", my friends would probably think I was making a joke.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
There are many euphemisms that irritate me : battling an illness; a person described as one of nature's gentlemen (what on earth does that mean?); people described as having 'passed' instead of the truthful expression 'died'. These and many others exist because people seem to be uncomfortable with calling a spade a spade. It seems that there are some subjects that fall into the unmentionable category because we are all unwilling to use ordinary language. The remedy lies with you and me.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I like what Twilight, LambChopped and others have said: the "battling" metaphor makes it into a moral or virtuous crusade rather than a medical condition, and I detest it. But perhaps people genuinely feel that one's mental state will help combat the disease. If that's true (and, knowing that the body is a complex mechanism, it may be) then that will apply to many other illnesses too.
@NEQ: a lady in my church was so frightened of cancer that she was even wary of referring to it as "The Big C." - I think she thought that mentioning it somehow acted as a lightning conductor and attracted the illness. You can guess what she died of - because she was too frightened to go to the doctor in case she found out that she had cancer.
I had a cancer scare and an operation a couple of years ago (had a follow-up CT scan this week, as it happens). The solicitude and rhetoric shown by people were totally different to the attitudes they have shown with other ailments. What is it about cancer in particular that causes this to happen, especially as treatment these days is so much better?
[ 23. August 2015, 06:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
These and many others exist because people seem to be uncomfortable with calling a spade a spade. It seems that there are some subjects that fall into the unmentionable category because we are all unwilling to use ordinary language. The remedy lies with you and me.
One phrase I dislike, though there may not be a better one: "She's having investigations done". Sounds as if she's employing Sherlock Holmes!
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I hate talk of fights and battles as if they are good things. Lots of hymns have the same - I dislike them intensely.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
As someone who experienced cancer, I'm not fond of people terming it a battle for you. If someone wants to view it that way, fine. Otherwise, it's an unhelpful characterization that implies those who die didn't fight well enough. It would be odd to describe a "battle" with mortality since we all die.
The phrase became popular in the Nixon years as there was a decision to start a massive federal research program against cancer, like the race to the moon. It's less obnoxious to describe a government program rather than a personal struggle that way, but one of the things they found early on was that "Cancer' was many different malfunctions, some of them now curable and others not.
Personally I'd rather not use it for my own experience. It's not an external enemy, it's part of my body not working properly.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
When I hear it said someone has died "after a long/etc battle against cancer", I sense something not quite right.
I don't know what exactly is wrong with it, other than being a euphemism and a cliche, and I wonder if anyone here shares my concern and can articulate it better.
Oh, absolutely agree! Every time I hear that, I wince! When I had cancer, I knew it was the skill of the doctors, radiologists and pharmacists etc that would make the difference as to whether I'd live or not. Then I heard it articulated far better by Claire Rayner when she had cancer.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
There are many euphemisms that irritate me : battling an illness; a person described as one of nature's gentlemen (what on earth does that mean?); people described as having 'passed' instead of the truthful expression 'died'. These and many others exist because people seem to be uncomfortable with calling a spade a spade. It seems that there are some subjects that fall into the unmentionable category because we are all unwilling to use ordinary language. The remedy lies with you and me.
Spot on! I've made it clear to my granddaughters that when I die, they should not use any euphemisms. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
There's some sort of alternative healing centre near here - they say that you shouldn't 'battle' but keep calm and meditative becvause this has a curative effect whereas battling depletes healing energy.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
My experience is that not many people are OK with being helpless. So, when people with cancer and their friends and family use phrases that imply a battle, I think it is because they do not want to feel helpless against that disease.
It is possible that they need to channel their feelings of fear and frustration into terms that make them feel less helpless.
Perhaps instead of condemning those folks it might be a good idea to pray that they find comfort and serenity.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
There's some sort of alternative healing centre near here - they say that you shouldn't 'battle' but keep calm and meditative because this has a curative effect whereas battling depletes healing energy.
I suppose this could explain why some folk who doctors give months to live sometimes unexpectedly go on a few years. Perhaps part of it's down to the person and their demeanour and part down to the nature of the condition.
The fight for survival is an intrinsic trait in all life forms so it is understandable that we might use such terminology where life threatening conditions are concerned. Yet when the end of life is near, or inevitable something else seems to take over, something peaceful and calm.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
My experience is that not many people are OK with being helpless. So, when people with cancer and their friends and family use phrases that imply a battle, I think it is because they do not want to feel helpless against that disease.
That's fair enough. If the phrasing helps people with cancer and those near to them to cope, then all to the good.
What a lot of people here don't care for is other people using the term generally. As can be seen here, those who have actually had cancer, don't care for it.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
People should be free to use whatever language framework that want and what helps them work through the trauma of having cancer.
If you don't like the language then don't use it. It's really simple.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
LC wrote:
quote:
...inspira-porn...Once in a while we get this about our immigrant ministry ("what wonderful people you are, I could never do that")
It's code for "here's a piece of verbal schlock which cost me nothing, which I'm going to use internally to buy off my conscience in lieu of feeling personal responsibility for the thing I'm professing to praise you for".
It's kind of the more socially-competent version of what I generally do, which is also to do nothing but also to say nothing, and to just feel shit.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I think Polly is correct.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Polly:
People should be free to use whatever language framework that want and what helps them work through the trauma of having cancer.
If you don't like the language then don't use it. It's really simple.
That's not the point. If people with cancer see it in those terms, fine. I hope it helps them.
None of those on this thread who have had cancer or chemo (including me) like it. But if others who have had cancer do, well and good.
The point is how it is used by others as a sentimental cliche to distance themselves and trivialize our struggle.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
The point is how it is used by others as a sentimental cliche to distance themselves and trivialize our struggle.
I think that's pretty awful to say about people who try to show care and empathy for those who struggle with any illness let alone anyone suffering from cancer.
The 3rd time my mum had brain cancer last year and had to have an operation we had a number of people who showed their care and concern, some of them even used the language of battling cancer. I would never suggest anyone who came along side my family and tried to do anything you suggested.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The point is how it is used by others as a sentimental cliche to distance themselves and trivialize our struggle.
Right, or lay expectations on others just when they don't feel up to meeting them.
I think personality might have a lot to do with this, maybe even gender in some cases. Tortuf would hate to feel helpless and might prefer the idea of going forth, battling bravely. Boogie and I don't like the idea of fighting at all and would rather stay in and pet our dogs.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Polly, I wasn't talking about people in contact with those with cancer.
It must have been awful for your family and I'm glad there were people to support you.
I was talking about those who just generally use the term "battling against cancer" as the inevitable term for those that they don't know.
Posted by Polly (# 1107) on
:
quote:
I was talking about those who just generally use the term "battling against cancer" as the inevitable term for those that they don't know.
The thing is everyone knows someone who has suffered from cancer. Some know how to talk about it better than others but to suggest that some use language to distance themselves from another persons suffering purposely is not on.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
How about all those conversations that go like this:
"Joan has cancer."
"She's a smoker isn't she?"
"Yes."
"Well."
The withholding of sympathy because we blame the victim's life style choices is starting to show up over all sorts of things.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Look, it's not true that people are helpless. It's not true that a cancer patient is supposed to just lie there passively while doctors and radiologists and what have you do their thing.
Saying that it's all about willpower is wrong, but so is the other extreme of saying that attitude has nothing to do with physical outcomes. There is plenty of research showing how a person's mental state affects their body.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The withholding of sympathy because we blame the victim's life style choices is starting to show up over all sorts of things.
It's been showing up since the Ancient Greek playwrights. It's never been the case that people who suffer misfortune through no fault of their own and people who significantly contributed to their own misfortune have been viewed in the same light.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
What bugs me is I'm getting (about my family members) questions like "What did he/she do to get cancer?" and the questioner expects a neat, nice answer, all wrapped up in ribbon. It's not meant in any negative sort of way--I know the questioner, and he's not trying to victim-blame--but he is very much worried that it could happen to someone he loves, and he really doesn't want to hear "It just happened" because that leaves open the possibility it could "just happen" to his wife or kids. There ought to be something controllable, dammit! (sigh) and so he keeps asking...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
How about all those conversations that go like this:
"Joan has cancer."
"She's a smoker isn't she?"
"Yes."
"Well."
The withholding of sympathy because we blame the victim's life style choices is starting to show up over all sorts of things.
Withholding sympathy from whom? The dead person? They don't need it, they're dead. The dead person's loved ones? Well, that is a bit jerkish. But acknowledging the cause isn't necessarily equivalent to a lessening of sympathy.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
... though not ALL cases of lung cancer are due to smoking, and no doubt there are a few cases where a smoker would have had lung cancer regardless of personal habits. Which confounds the issue.
Mr. Lamb was dealing with a woman with lung cancer last year who had never smoked a cigarette, but the constant assumption by everybody was that she had. It must be a burden.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
How about all those conversations that go like this:
"Joan has cancer."
"She's a smoker isn't she?"
"Yes."
"Well."
The withholding of sympathy because we blame the victim's life style choices is starting to show up over all sorts of things.
Withholding sympathy from whom? The dead person? They don't need it, they're dead. The dead person's loved ones? Well, that is a bit jerkish. But acknowledging the cause isn't necessarily equivalent to a lessening of sympathy.
Twilight's conversation is in the present tense, so I assume that her Joan character is still alive.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Good catch.
Well, then, how about just the last line?
Acknowledging the cause isn't necessarily equivalent to a lessening of sympathy.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... though not ALL cases of lung cancer are due to smoking, and no doubt there are a few cases where a smoker would have had lung cancer regardless of personal habits. Which confounds the issue.
Mr. Lamb was dealing with a woman with lung cancer last year who had never smoked a cigarette, but the constant assumption by everybody was that she had. It must be a burden.
Yes, the one case of lung cancer I personally know is also a non-smoker, and he must constantly deal with the assumptions. It's almost as if he has a separate condition, called "lung-cancer-but-I'm-not-a-smoker".
The problem with all of this is that people basically can't handle statistical probability. Smoking increases your risk of lung cancer, but not all lung cancer is caused by smoking and not all smokers will get lung cancer.
It's false that having strong willpower will mean that you win the "battle"... but it's also false to think that your willpower/attitude has no effect whatsoever.
It's much the same issue as to why people will comment on the weather on a particular day as if it proves or disproves climate change.
[ 24. August 2015, 05:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Perhaps instead of condemning those folks it might be a good idea to pray that they find comfort and serenity.
I didn't see any posts on this thread condemning people who term their struggle a battle. Instead what my post and others have said is that they don't appreciate other people pre-empting that decision by deciding for people with cancer that they are warriors in a battle.
For me the hardest part of having cancer was being told by my Doctor (and I checked it out) that the survival rate was higher for optimists. I spent two years being an optimist which is not my normal life stance. That's not exactly a battle.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... though not ALL cases of lung cancer are due to smoking...
Miss Molly died of lung cancer although she had never smoked.
Moo
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Someone I knew some years ago seemed to die from "giving up" - he had been in and out of hospital several times and was weak, but there didn't seem to be any particular reason why he died then other than that he didn't want to live any longer.
Without wanting to minimise those who have terminal illnesses in any way (and, of course, affirming the value of life even to the very sick), is there something less spiritual about "giving up" compared to "fighting cancer tooth and claw"?
Is the problem there that a refusal to fight a long debilitate illness is seen as tantamount to (a kind of) suicide?
Again, please do not think I am talking to anyone in particular, I am really struggling to understand the views expressed in the OP.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
The Onion, as so often, gets it.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
That is an awesome Onion story! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Wish I'd written it.
As for giving up--the problem here is that you can't tell cause and effect from one another. Did the person give up and thereby hasten his death? Or did he sense that death was just around the corner and therefore give up?
There are physical states that cause psychological symptoms, and sometimes the state of mind is the only obvious symptom. (Saw a writeup of a case yesterday of a woman with major major anxiety and panic, nothing else apparent--turned out to be an aortic dissection)
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
I don't understand what the difference is between following the procedures recommended by oncologists, being honest and clear about one's reactions etc, and doing exactly the same thing and 'battling' against the disease. Is there a difference?
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think personality might have a lot to do with this, maybe even gender in some cases.
Culture, too, possibly?
In some long-forgotten book I had on grief counselling, the author (an American) began by asserting that "Americans view death as a personal moral failing." ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
IIRC she then went on to a more nuanced observation, but that bold statement caught my attention.
If it is broadly true that American culture is more optimistic - and British culture has more public space for bitterness and unfairness - those cultural differences could affect what it means to be "battling" cancer. If true, there is a higher risk that an American with a poor outcome might be viewed as an inadequate shirker, blamed for not taking a positive enough attitude toward cancer.
There's a whole lot of magical thinking that can attach to that.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
That's an awesome point.
Yes, I do think there's a lot of moral stuff (wrongly) attached to sickness and death in this culture. Which may be why the sick are so often plagued with self-chosen evangelists of this, that and the other "get your health back" snake oil techniques. There's so often a whiff of "come to the righteous side" about what they say.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is the problem there that a refusal to fight a long debilitate illness is seen as tantamount to (a kind of) suicide?
The alternative to “battle” is not giving up. Susan Doris, our resident atheist, has well put one reason – you don’t have to use that particular metaphor for just coping.
Christians might like to consider Jesus in the garden “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” Humanly speaking Jesus gave up.
The battle against mortality has already been fought and won on the cross.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
Is the "battle against cancer" just a sloppy way of saying the "battle against the effects of cancer".
I have no doubt that many people with cancer actively battle the debilitating effects that the disease and its treatment can cause. Just getting out of bed may be a physical and/or a mental battle. Assuming that nothing else gets me first I hope that I shall deserve the accolade of cancer (effect) battler in due course.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I don't like the expression - so much that I have been avoiding the thread.
My mother died of brain cancer. She held it at bay for as long as possible so that she stayed at home - I know it was difficult for my father, but he wouldn't let me go to see them. She was hallucinating people, and perhaps developing dementia. Then she went into hospital and we visited nearly all the time for several weeks before she went - "She's a fighter" the nurses said, and I wished she wouldn't - she got to a stage where the whole of her body could not be touched without it causing pain. They took three days after suggesting morphine to get the pump in, and I tried to work out how to turn it faster, but couldn't. By then she wanted to go.
One of my colleagues also had brain cancer, which was treated and went into remission briefly, at which time she came back into school for a last visit. We knew, and were told by her family to keep to ourselves, that it would recur, and be terminal. She was of a church which was at the Pentecostal end of the spectrum, and believed that God would not allow her to die of what she believed was evil. Her battle was prayer. And it was going to fail, and we knew it, and had to keep silent.
I do not like the language. It, as has been said above, implies failure if the disease wins.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
Thank you, Penny. Often enough, I have tried to laugh in the face of cancer as a way of keeping my spirits up while I have that luxury. But you can't always do that, and you have made that reality clear. Tears and prayers are much more comforting than bravado and war cries.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I will admit to using the 'fighter' term in a eulogy I was asked to write for a close family member. The person was diagnosed with terminal cancer aged 86 and spent her life, (which hadn't been the easiest) , head- strong.
I didn't see much point in having it said at her funeral that she pretty much went to pieces come the end. There is usually some attempt to protect a person's dignity when they have died from something unpleasant. Rather like 'died in action' for a soldier rather than explicit details of their being blown up or drowned in mud.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
The carer who comes to help the Grandad shower told me, without comment, of two clients, both of whom had Multiple Sclerosis.
One, when diagnosed, took advantage of all available ameliorating treatment, physiotherapy etc. He still gets dressed and goes to work each day. The other did nothing to help himself and is now totally paralysed.
I don't know the time frame, but it does illustrate how attitude can make a huge difference to physical outcomes, and why people might want to refer to the second person as a battler, though he might not welcome the label.
GG
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
That's certainly true with arthritis Galloping Granny. Getting lots of exercise is the best thing by far, even when it hurts!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Lam Chopped. I don't see that as listed with the usually (96%) pretty obvious, acute, nasty symptoms of aortic dissection.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Kindly refrain from dispensing medical diagnosis and/or advice. This host annoucement carries an Admin health warning.
/hosting
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
The carer who comes to help the Grandad shower told me, without comment, of two clients, both of whom had Multiple Sclerosis.
One, when diagnosed, took advantage of all available ameliorating treatment, physiotherapy etc. He still gets dressed and goes to work each day. The other did nothing to help himself and is now totally paralysed.
I don't know the time frame, but it does illustrate how attitude can make a huge difference to physical outcomes, and why people might want to refer to the second person as a battler, though he might not welcome the label.
GG
When I read your anecdote, it sounds like it was designed to produce judgmental moral superiority toward one person diagnosed with the disease. This is horseshit. MS is notoriously variable in the rapidity and severity of its onset. Some people have a series of long steady plateaus lasting for years; others are paralyzed within a month of diagnosis. This is not a good case study for the effects of positive attitude.
The problem IMO is when people use their perceptions of "positive attitude" to judge the sufferer of an illness, thereby increasing the sufferer's misery, in order to reinforce their own magical thinking. "Well, if I was diagnosed with MS, I would do everything in my power to fight it, because after all I'm a fighter. I wouldn't be like X over there who became crippled in a month. Because I have a positive attitude, and a smile is my shield."
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
The carer who comes to help the Grandad shower told me, without comment, of two clients, both of whom had Multiple Sclerosis.
One, when diagnosed, took advantage of all available ameliorating treatment, physiotherapy etc. He still gets dressed and goes to work each day. The other did nothing to help himself and is now totally paralysed.
I don't know the time frame, but it does illustrate how attitude can make a huge difference to physical outcomes, and why people might want to refer to the second person as a battler, though he might not welcome the label.
GG
When I read your anecdote, it sounds like it was designed to produce judgmental moral superiority toward one person diagnosed with the disease. This is horseshit. MS is notoriously variable in the rapidity and severity of its onset. Some people have a series of long steady plateaus lasting for years; others are paralyzed within a month of diagnosis. This is not a good case study for the effects of positive attitude.
The problem IMO is when people use their perceptions of "positive attitude" to judge the sufferer of an illness, thereby increasing the sufferer's misery, in order to reinforce their own magical thinking. "Well, if I was diagnosed with MS, I would do everything in my power to fight it, because after all I'm a fighter. I wouldn't be like X over there who became crippled in a month. Because I have a positive attitude, and a smile is my shield."
I intended no moral judgement, but neither have I personal acquaintance with MS, so thank you for balancing my observation.
My remarks may have been coloured by the fact that I'm dealing with pain that none of the consultants can diagnose the source of. Pain relief is adequate but my main emotion is 'I'm damned if I'll let this stop me from doing the things that I regard as meaningful activities'.
GG
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
My remarks may have been coloured by the fact that I'm dealing with pain that none of the consultants can diagnose the source of. Pain relief is adequate but my main emotion is 'I'm damned if I'll let this stop me from doing the things that I regard as meaningful activities'.
I admire your fortitude.
My attitude toward others' responses to suffering is a more in-depth version of my attitude toward others' fashion choices: I am far more likely to compliment than criticize. With most people, criticism doesn't help anyway and only wounds them and makes them defensive. I might have opinions - and if asked, or if I thought something really bad was going on, I might gently offer some alternatives. But particularly when it comes to suffering, it's unique to each individual, and I am very reluctant to label or tell another what their response ought to be. It's not a good 'teachable moment' when someone's in the midst of it.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
When I had cancer, I knew it was the skill of the doctors, radiologists and pharmacists etc that would make the difference as to whether I'd live or not.
Eh? You think that in the UK there are a statistically significant number of people dying of cancer who would have survived if they'd had more skillful doctors, radiologists and pharmacists? That is a pretty big way to dis an awful lot of doctors and pharmacists.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
When I had cancer, I knew it was the skill of the doctors, radiologists and pharmacists etc that would make the difference as to whether I'd live or not.
Eh? You think that in the UK there are a statistically significant number of people dying of cancer who would have survived if they'd had more skillful doctors, radiologists and pharmacists?
Of course not! My implication was that I did not include any input from any God/god/s, prayers, or any other kind of supernatural, or magical thinking in my cure from the cancer. Doctors do everything they can to enable patients to recover fully, and because of their improving skills and equipment, work and research, increasing numbers do not die. None of the cures, or aspects of those cures, can be ascribed to any God, or spirit, etc.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
I am far more likely to compliment than criticize.
Well, yeah. One does not, and cannot, know exactly what another feels or experiences. Though, if I am honest, I need to mentally remind myself of this constantly.
Posted by earrings (# 13306) on
:
As some one going through chemo at the moment I've thought a fair bit about the language we use around cancer. The avoidance of the word, the use of the metaphor of battle and such-like. For me one of the important things has been to consider not battling, but journeying. A battle is something that can be lost or won. A journey is quite different, the outcome may not be entirely certain and it can take us to extraordinary places, some of which are welcome, others less so. But it both gives certain sense of power and reminds of vulnerability and for that reason I find it helpful.
ven bede posted...
quote:
Christians might like to consider Jesus in the garden “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” Humanly speaking Jesus gave up.
Not in my book. I had my biopsy in Holy Week and my reflections clustered very much around that image. Jesus not giving up but walking into the fear and taking up the challenge of a difficult/ impossible/ terrible journey. That's my story, we are all different but that was/is key and important for me.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0