[Tom]

Its just something I've personally felt for a while. Obviously its a bad disease and I don't wish anyone suffering it any harm but is it 'overexposed'? (I use the term overexposed loosely, its not really what I mean but generally gets the point across)

With such a high survival rate of around 80%, more and more funding is still going into it and there are a lot of campaigns to get women to check themselves etc but is it time to stop and start looking into other types? There are some types of cancer, for example bowel cancer, which has a survival rate of around 50%, and other types which are lower. Breast cancer is the one of the types with the highest survival rates but I feel that whether its TV adverts, programmes, fundraising events etc they all seem to be centered around breast cancer. There doesn't really seem to be so much publicity surrounding any other types, especially "male-only" types which hardly seem to get a look in.

Personally I think research should continue but I also think its time to raise awareness of other types, and I think more funding should go into looking at other types and less going in to researching breast cancer. I think survival rates all round need to rise to a similar level across the board before focusing properly on one particular type that seems to happen.

I know I've gone on a bit and repeated some of my points (blame the tiredness ) but I hope I've got my point across well and it will be interesting to hear other views ...

[bronaaaa]

yes i see your point, but breast cancer is more common so maybe thats why

[Nurse57]

"but is it time to stop and start looking into other types?"

Why stop. How about carry on AND look at other types?

The reason why breast cancer has such a high survival rate is that it is one of the easier ones to spot ant treat. If they did not do the campaigns then the survival rate would go down.

Tell me. Have you ever raised money for a male cancer? Done a run for prostate cancer like the race for life that women do? A lot of what gets spent is raise by women for women.

Women also are more likely to help themselves. If I were to ask the women here (of the right age group) how many checked their bodies I guess the number would be high. If I were to ask the lads however? We tend to leave stuff until we can't stand it any more. Have I ever checked my balls? I am 36 and I have once of twice. Why so little? Well I feel fine so i must be ok. That is men in general. Until we are ready to help ourselves any money they spend looking for a cure will be waisted if we are not prepared to slap our meat and two veg in the doctors hand.

[Tom]

I didn't mean 'stop' in the sense to not continue, I just think should there be more events for other types? It only seems to be the one type which many events are done for.

[Matt10k]

In terms of rates, it is prostate cancer that has the highest rates of the male cancers (by far) and that's not the kind of thing you can just check, like breast cancer

I agree- at least in terms of government funding, that other common cancers such as prostate cancer deserve a little more of the share. In the US for example, over $500 million is spent on breast cancer funding by the government, with just $300 million on prostate cancer and breast cancer is only slightly more common and both kill around the same number of people- so it's hard to see why there's a $200 million deficit.

As for charities, I agree with Nurse57- that people can and should be encouraged to raise money for whatever cause they want. A lot of women who run those charities, have some sort of personal experience with breast cancer and so choose to raise money for it because it is close to their heart. Obviously, not as many men decide to do the same for prostate cancer.

If you’re interested to know about rates of different cancers in the uk, I found this site: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/

[Ruth]

One of the reasons that breast cancer has one of the highest survival rates is precisely because of the amount of research which has been dedicated to it.

[Ruth]

Originally posted by Matt10k
In terms of rates, it is prostate cancer that has the highest rates of the male cancers (by far) and that's not the kind of thing you can just check, like breast cancer

I agree- at least in terms of government funding, that other common cancers such as prostate cancer deserve a little more of the share. In the US for example, over $500 million is spent on breast cancer funding by the government, with just $300 million on prostate cancer and breast cancer is only slightly more common and both kill around the same number of people- so it's hard to see why there's a $200 million deficit.

As for charities, I agree with Nurse57- that people can and should be encouraged to raise money for whatever cause they want. A lot of women who run those charities, have some sort of personal experience with breast cancer and so choose to raise money for it because it is close to their heart. Obviously, not as many men decide to do the same for prostate cancer.

If you’re interested to know about rates of different cancers in the uk, I found this site: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/

'Just checking' does not always find incidences of breast cancer.

[Ruth]

Incidentally, I fully agree that other forms of cancer may deserve more funding/research, but without taking it away from breast cancer.

[Matt10k]

Originally posted by Ruth
'Just checking' does not always find incidences of breast cancer.

I didn't say it did- I just meant the reason women are told to check, is because it is possible to check- which isn't really true for prostate cancer!

[Ruth]

Fair comment - I misinterpreted what you wrote.

[PrimaryObjective]

The OP could have been interpreted both ways, but for the benefit of discussion, I'll assume they meant other cancers should get the same amount of exposure as Breast Cancer rather than meaning Breast Cancer should get less.

I'd agree. All types of Cancer are awful and I'd like to see more money go into research so that we may one day find a cure for this terrible disease.

It's obviously good that there is such awareness about Breast Cancer. However, there are also a lot of high profile people lending their name to the Everyman Campaign to raise awareness of Testicular Cancer. Have a look at this link.

[AngRemembered]

Well I have breast cancer, shock and a touch of denial led me to delay much needed treatment but I've been told the outcome of surgery would have been inevitable, there was in the end little I could have done to save the breast I lost.

I think awareness to health amongst woman is higher than men due to natural causes, woman give birth, and generally are the main child carer with puts them again directly/indirectly in contact with health visitors, nurses and doctors.
I agree its the money raised on making awareness of this disease easier to treat, and thats why breast cancer statistically does better.
We must use that fact in pushing for a much wider campaigns to other forms of cancer, but without the help of the potential beneficiaries this will never get anywhere in the fight for funds in a world full of life threatening health problems in which all types of cancer make such a tiny part in the general scheme of things.

Any health issues with such dire consequenses can never be called overexposed though or taken lightly, the proof is in the statistics with awareness and funds the problem becomes less life threatening but the definition in question may lead to complacancy and those statistics even though a good start still sugest 20 people to many die from a condition if treated quickly can be a success, even if one suffers the body blow and loses a breast as a result of it.

[MrGaryy]

I think more attention should be put towards testicular cancer. But I don't see why the same amount can't be put on both!

[Tom]

Originally posted by Angiebabe
Well I have breast cancer, shock and a touch of denial led me to delay much needed treatment but I've been told the outcome of surgery would have been inevitable, there was in the end little I could have done to save the breast I lost.

I think awareness to health amongst woman is higher than men due to natural causes, woman give birth, and generally are the main child carer with puts them again directly/indirectly in contact with health visitors, nurses and doctors.
I agree its the money raised on making awareness of this disease easier to treat, and thats why breast cancer statistically does better.
We must use that fact in pushing for a much wider campaigns to other forms of cancer, but without the help of the potential beneficiaries this will never get anywhere in the fight for funds in a world full of life threatening health problems in which all types of cancer make such a tiny part in the general scheme of things.

Any health issues with such dire consequenses can never be called overexposed though or taken lightly, the proof is in the statistics with awareness and funds the problem becomes less life threatening but the definition in question may lead to complacancy and those statistics even though a good start still sugest 20 people to many die from a condition if treated quickly can be a success, even if one suffers the body blow and loses a breast as a result of it.

I'm not saying that its overexposed which is why I said I use the term loosely, a more accurate thing to say would be that other forms are underexposed. I just personally feel that with the survival rates getting higher and higher, I think the main focus should go on to other forms, not just focusing on one type, but still focusing on it a great deal. Am I making sense here?

Anyway as I said in the opening post I don't wish harm on anyone with it (and I wish you a fast recovery) because from experience its an awful disease and some people aren't as lucky as others. Ironically it was another type that took someone else away that I knew and was a result of being unaware of any symptoms from both the patient and the doctors side, and being unable to diagnose it until it was inevitably too late. Lack of awareness also takes lives and to me it does seem like they focus on breast cancer a hell of a lot more than other types.

[Rory]

I don't think so. Women raise the money themselves, seeing as they take the initiative to do something about it. I think males should put more attention on testicular cancer like women do breast cancer.

[Matt10k]

Originally posted by Rory
I don't think so. Women raise the money themselves, seeing as they take the initiative to do something about it. I think males should put more attention on testicular cancer like women do breast cancer.

Not everyone is talking purely about charity money. It is great that people raise so much money for charities and they can give the money to whatever charity they want of course.

I was talking about government funding and how male cancers- particularly prostate cancer that is by far the most common and deadly male cancer, needs more government funding as it affects 35,000 men a year and kills 10,000. Breast cancer affects 44,000 women and kills 12,000- so is a bit more common but recieves far more funding- which isn’t fair.

Here is a recent news story showing how the NHS has decided not to fund a life saving treatment for men with prostate cancer:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...treatment.html

Just one of the things that would probably have got the go ahead if prostate cancer was given the funding it deserves.

[Nurse57]

This is interesting news about a new drug for prostate cancer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7502238.stm

[Nurse57]

From the Daily Mash.


A NEW prostate cancer drug which could save thousands of lives is still not as good as The Wire, critics said last night.

Although the drug could potentially treat up to 80% of patients, scientists and television reviewers agreed it lacked the Dickensian scope of the Baltimore crime drama.

Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: "Cancer cures come and go, but in 20 years time people will still be going on and on - and on - about The Wire.

"This drug may attack cancerous cells but it cannot match the sheer genius of that scene where the big, scary black guy says something really profound but does it through the medium of chess.

"But the real genius of The Wire is that its genius is so subtle, even though I have no idea what's going on and the only words I can understand are 'bitches' and 'mother****er'."

He added: "It makes this new cancer drug look like Jonathan Creek."

The Wire is the latest in a string of genius American television dramas which have forced critics to invent a new range of superlatives.

The advertising-based drama Mad Men, last week voted 'better than trees' by the American Tree Institute, was described by one critic as 'magnibulous'.

Even cancer patients who have been treated successfully backed The Wire.

Tom Booker, 54, said: "This drug made no attempt to redefine the parameters of television drama and as far as I am aware there were no ex-policemen or gang members involved in its production.

"That said, my arse is much less painful."

[Fom]

Originally posted by Matt10k

I didn't say it did- I just meant the reason women are told to check, is because it is possible to check- which isn't really true for prostate cancer!

Unless you wanna stick your finger up there and have a gander
haha ew

[Matt10k]

Originally posted by Fom

Unless you want to stick your finger up there and have a gander
haha ew

Yeah, I knew that was the way of testing for it. Didn't really want to 'go there'