 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2010Your alternative catch-phrase for "war on cancer" would be...?
I can't say I have one... yet. I just find the whole mindset on this quite interesting and suddenly realised how right he is that it seems we humans are often only able to evoke "war" to describe human co-operation in pursuit of a common goal. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/29/war-fight-cancer-empowering- patient > I can't say I have one... yet. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/29/war-fight-cancer-empowering- patient Well, 'cancer is a social and environmental issue, requiring profound social and environmental changes' isn't particularly catchy. I can't think of anything - such ideas as pop into my head, like 'campaign', are also military. I think some groups are promoting the idea of 'living with cancer', to get at the idea that some people with cancer have years of quite good quality of life while undergoing treatments, and to get away from the idea that you are either sick, in remission, or (after 5 years) cured. I don't see his problem with the 'courageous battle'. After all, some of the most courageous battles end in defeat by a more powerful enemy, so I see no implication at all that people who die from cancer are insufficiently courageous. I do know of some people who do claim that it's the fault of cancer patients if they get cancer, because they are insufficiently cheerful or carelessly ate the wrong things or lacked faith or optimiosm or something. I think that's really vicious and also generally downright wrong; there are very few if any cancers with single, well-understood causes that could easily be avoided. But praising a deceased patient for the courage with which he or she dealt with the disease? I think that's admirable and is is no way blaming the victim. Nor should stoicism prevent anyone from describing their symptoms accurately to the doctor - it just prevents them from from detailing them to everyone from the cleaner to the casual visitor.  SignatureCheryl On 30 Dec 2009, Cheryl wrote >> I can't say I have one... yet. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/29/war-fight-ca >> ncer-empowering-patient -snip- > I don't see his problem with the 'courageous battle'. After all, > some of the most courageous battles end in defeat by a more > powerful enemy, so I see no implication at all that people who > die from cancer are insufficiently courageous. I see that implication, although it's not so much that "those who die are insufficiently courageous", but that "those who don't battle cancer courageously -- those who decide not to rage against the dying of the light -- are somehow letting everyone down". Faced with cancer, "giving up" seems to me to be as valid a course of action as "battling courageously", and I suspect the argument against the latter as the admirable course to take is that it dismisses as morally deficient those who might approach their condition in a different way. > But praising a deceased patient for the courage with which he or > she dealt with the disease? I think that's admirable and is is > no way blaming the victim. What if they dealt with it by whimpering, hiding in the corner, giving up, and dying a few months earlier than if they'd "courageously battled" the disease? I don't see how praising deceased patients for the courage with which they faced cancer can avoid, by implication, criticising those who didn't bring such courage to the party. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed <snip> > What if they dealt with it by whimpering, hiding in the corner, > giving up, and dying a few months earlier than if they'd > "courageously battled" the disease? "Died following a (short) battle with cancer" or "Died (following a short illness)", if the next of kin don't think the disease is anyone else's business; words in brackets optional. > I don't see how praising deceased patients for the courage with > which they faced cancer can avoid, by implication, criticising > those who didn't bring such courage to the party. I don't think it ever occured to me that one should refrain from praising one person's courage because others don't have it. That would be like not praising one person's brilliant musical talent because to do so would be to point out to everyone else that they weren't very musical at all. And it's not as though it's an either/or situation. I expect that the most courageous person has moments of curling up whimpering in a corner; in fact, someone who has never experienced terror can't be very courageous. And although I've heard of a few studies showing that attitude can affect outcomes, I expect in many cases, it's the type of cancer, the general health of the patient and the treatment that determines the survival time, not the courage (or lack of it). SignatureCheryl > > I can't say I have one... yet. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > also military. I think some groups are promoting the idea of 'living > with cancer', Dam, I had thought of that. So it's back to the drawing board for originality. Just to think out loud, when someone drowns we don't say "died after a short struggle with a body of water" we say "Drowned" but I can't think of an equivalent for cancer. Often one reads "(So and so) died after a short/illness." No mention of war, or battle grounds there. "taken/snatched by cancer" also suggests cancer is in some way sentient (I just mentioned to my wife "it's not like it's got free will". To which she rightly replied " But you don't know that!"). One dices with death, but can't gamble with cancer if it simply doesn't want to play. "The Answer to Cancer" has more poetic appeal IMO than "the war on cancer" , so why do I wonder if it's not good enough to replace it? TAtC also works on other levels for those afflicted who want to answer back to it. To beat it. And an "answer" can have a philosophical undercurrent reaching into the more holistic field. >to get at the idea that some people with cancer have years > of quite good quality of life while undergoing treatments, and to get [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > see no implication at all that people who die from cancer are > insufficiently courageous. His objection is because it's relatively meaningless; and from: "In blaming the victim, the ideology attached to cancer mirrors the bootstrap individualism of the neoliberal order, in which the poor are poor because of their own weaknesses – and "failure" and "success" become the ultimate duality, dished out according to individual merit." ...there's a hint that those who lost the fight regardless, must have deserved to do so because "obviously" they couldn't have been courageous enough. Courageousness implies a level playing field where those who are more couragegous can influence the out come. lest, that's how I read it. > I do know of some people who do claim that > it's the fault of cancer patients if they get cancer, because they are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > victim. Nor should stoicism prevent anyone from describing their > symptoms accurately to the doctor - But it does; many a patient goes to a doctor and see a person just like any other and react accordingly. > it just prevents them from from > detailing them to everyone from the cleaner to the casual visitor. > > -- > Cheryl On Dec 30, 7:25 pm, aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > I can't say I have one... yet. > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > But it does; many a patient goes to a doctor and see a person just > like any other and react accordingly. We don't really need a catch-phrase, do we? All our bodies start to develop defects before the half-time whistle goes, and it's usually a combination of these defects, rather than one sole failure unassisted by any other, that results in death. Even a body that lacks a specific mortal disease will cease to function at around 90 years, or a few more, through general deterioration in oxygen transport facility, repair functions, and damaged cell replacement. Cancer is a name for a particular class of these defects where uncontrolled growth ultimately kills by interference with vital function. It's not particularly special, and most people who die of old age have it, even though they may not know it, as autopsies show. There's not a lot of point in having a war against death. All we can do (in this metaphor) is to fight, and hope to win, a few skirmishes, before there comes the one that we shall lose. Rather than "war on cancer" I think I'd point to a "care of life". -- franzi On Dec 31, 12:29 am, franzi <et.in.arcadia.fra...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 7:25 pm, aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > We don't really need a catch-phrase, do we? "Catch phrase" was my own invention; It's not an expression used (nor really even hinted at) by the author of the article. The main point of interest for me , which is relevant to this group, is the language, the terms used, or to be more precise our apparent limitation on that point. The author expresses it; "For a start, why must every concerted effort be likened to warfare? Is this the only way we are able to describe human co-operation in pursuit of a common goal?" Having given it some thought I realised that by categorising it, there appears to be "something that breaks out of that straitjacket" as Wood Avens put it. The problem being suggested by the author in the above sentence is that it's not actually true that we are seemingly only able to only gather under the Martial flag. Words like , war, fighting, fought and battling stem from the martial flag pole; but I'm not convinced that it has a right to claim sole ownership of the word "courageous", as the article lends it. "(So and so) died after a courageous battle with cancer" is the equivalent of military personal draping the coffin with national flag. But, there are other flags, other banners. The "catch phrase" using the word "cure" as in "The Cure for cancer" stems from the banner of Medicine. But right now I'm struggling to fight for words to trip of the tongue to find a selection comparable to it's combatant counterpart. " "(So and so) died after failing to recover from cancer" just doesn't have the same ring to it. "Living with cancer" stems from the mother of all banners; Life. In the author's case, his illness has given a directional incentive and it's proving fruitful, so in time it may be said that he "died following a fruitful life with cancer". Not as attention grabbing as the combatant version, but personally I'd prefer it. And then there's the banner of Communication. Here's where The Answer to Cancer" resides. It's biggest problem is that it reeks like a joke which has to be explained. Yes, "Answer" can be given a combatant flap-jacket (Answer back, answer assertively) (combatant) Yes, "Answer" can be part of a conversation, a response, a dialogue, communication. (holistic) Yes, "Answer" can refer to discovery, innovation and invention (medicine) But "(So and so) died after a long/short _chat_ with cancer" is more like something a stand up comedian would use >All our bodies start to > develop defects before the half-time whistle goes, and it's usually a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > franzi > I can't say I have one... yet. > > I just find the whole mindset on this quite interesting and suddenly > realised how right he is that it seems we humans are often only able > to evoke "war" to describe human co-operation in pursuit of a common > goal. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/29/war-fight-cancer-empowering- patient This columnist writes as if ignorant of metaphorical uses of "war" in non-military contexts, cf. evangelism ("Onward Christian Soldiers") cf. class warfare or war on immorality (Victorian Marxian and political usage), war on want (post-WW2 economic reforms) and even social philosophy (searching for a "moral equivalent of war.") The columnist concludes: "What we need is not a war on cancer but a recognition that cancer is a social and environmental issue." He makes good points about current expectations that "that if you can't "conquer" your cancer, there's something wrong with you" but fails to appreciate how war is a group project while treatment for cancer is something highly individual. (Fortunately doctors understand this, I am informed by friends treated for cancer.) SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >I can't say I have one... yet. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/29/war-fight-cancer-empowering- patient Yes, I found that a thought-provoking article, too. I got as far as "negotiating with cancer". But that still presumes an oppositional relationship, and I'm really looking for something that breaks out of that straitjacket as well, something that's more of a "mon semblable, mon frère" approach. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:02:58 -0800 (PST), aquachimp > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that straitjacket as well, something that's more of a "mon semblable, > mon frère" approach. I'm not familiar with the "mon semblable, mon frère" story, except that it is one. > -- > > Katy Jennison > > spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:02:58 -0800 (PST), aquachimp >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I'm not familiar with the "mon semblable, >mon frère" story, except that it is one. Would "getting the drop on cancer" be too melodramatic? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:32:15 -0800 (PST), aquachimp > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Would "getting the drop on cancer" be too melodramatic? > -- I'm thinking that's a "cured" reference. But can't help thinking of it as a rugby one. >> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 04:02:58 -0800 (PST), aquachimp >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I'm thinking that's a "cured" reference. But can't help thinking of > it as a rugby one. OK. I think it is a gun-toting cowboy's reference. Dropping a glove or hat (drop of the hat?) was the "go" sign in a pistol-shooting face-off. Ah, but I see the sporting reference. I mean, hockey face-offs. And I suppose the rugby ones. Well, aren't most such team sports a metaphor for war? > >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:32:15 -0800 (PST), aquachimp > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Well, aren't most such team sports a metaphor for war? I hadn't gotten that far (-: I was thinking the "drop on" referred to gaining a sudden advantage... which could go either way in; to cure, or in war. I guess to "cure" could also be martial because it eliminates/conquers the problem. (drop-kick - rugby) >>>>>>> I can't say I have one... yet. >>>>>>> I just find the whole mindset on this quite interesting and [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > the problem. > (drop-kick - rugby) We're a combative species. I've been trying to think of something parallel to the 'lives with' one, but everything I come up with - accepts/acceptance; relates to etc etc - seems to imply that cancer is a positive or at least neutral thing, and I don't think even the slowly-progressing, easily curable types of cancer result in really positive or neutral experiences. And they're all often terms for a personal response, not applicable to a prolonged group response. Same thing for 'endurance'. "Concerted effort" to deal with the effects of cancer on people and society? SignatureCheryl > >> "aquachimp" <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > "Concerted effort" to deal with the effects of cancer on people and society? Sounds like a "Cancer Drive" or a "Drive on Cancer". Curiously, the author's request is to be "empowered". Strains of a martial tune there me thinks. On Jan 1, 3:26 pm, aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>>>>> I can't say I have one... yet. > > >>>>>>> I just find the whole mindset on this quite interesting and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > >>>>>>> common > > >>>>>>> goal. [snippety-doo-dah] If you are looking for a reason why the martial metaphor is invoked, let me try to illustrate with some selective quotation from Sherwin B. Nuland, of Yale University. "Cancer, far from being a clandestine foe, is in fact berserk with the malicious exuberance of killing. The disease pursues a continuous, uninhibited, circumferential, barn-burning expedition of destructiveness, in which it heeds no rules, follows no commands, and explodes all resistance in a homicidal riot of devastation. Its cells behave like the members of a barbarian horde run amok--leaderless and undirected, but with a single-minded purpose: to plunder everything within reach. This is what the medical scientists mean when they use the word /autonomy/. The form and rate of the murderous cells violates every rule of decorum within the living animal whose vital nutrients nourish it only to be destroyed by this enlarging atrocity that has sprung newborn from its own protoplasm... In the community of living tissues, the uncontrolled mob of misfits that is cancer behaves like a gang of perpetually wilding adolescents. They are the juvenile delinquents of cellular society... A cluster of malignant cells is a disorganized autonomous mob of maladjusted adolescents, raging against the society from which it sprang. It is a street gang intent upon mayhem. If we cannot help its members grow up, anything we can do to arrest them, remove them from our midst, or induce their demise-- anything that accomplishes one of those aims--is praiseworthy... Of all the diseases that they treat, cancer is the one that surgeons have given the specific designation of "The Enemy." [US punctuation retained] The question of the patient's fighting the war is, I believe, quite separate. Cancer invades the host and kills only incidentally, and quite carelessly. Whether its victim is cheerful, resigned, combative, or immediately defeated by their thoughts of what is happening inside them is not, so far as we know, particularly releveant to the outcome. The active parties are the cancer cells and the medical team. The patient is only the battleground, to be taken or saved. -- franzi <snip great quotation> > The question of the patient's fighting the war is, I believe, quite > separate. Cancer invades the host and kills only incidentally, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The active parties are the cancer cells and the medical team. The > patient is only the battleground, to be taken or saved. I think that's what that particular patient was objecting to. He wanted to be more than merely a battleground. SignatureCheryl > <snip great quotation> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > Cheryl Yes, but apart from: "Many cancer therapies are blunt instruments. They attack not only cancer cells but everything else in sight. This is one reason people fear cancer: the treatment can be brutal. Making it less brutal would be a huge stride forwards for people with cancer. And that requires not a top-down military strategy, with its win or lose approach, but greater access to information, wider participation in decision-making (across hierarchies and disciplines) and empowerment of the patient." He hints that it's the top down effect politicians have with the "War on ..." slogans is what is driving/influencing the martial language in the public arena ("battling" "conquer" "brave" ) and not, as Franzi implies, from the medical establishment. >> <snip great quotation> >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > in the public arena ("battling" "conquer" "brave" ) and not, as Franzi > implies, from the medical establishment. I don't quite see how empowering the patient and having the patient participate more in the decision-making process could possibly make the treatments available less brutal. I missed that the first time through. Possibly more advanced treatments would be less brutal, although there's no guarantee; they might be merely more effective. But finding them isn't usually a job for the patient. The patient should participate in the treatment decisions, but with such complicated options, he's bound to depend a lot on the doctor's advice as to the efficacy and the type and probability of major side effects of any given treatment. SignatureCheryl > I don't quite see how empowering the patient and having the patient > participate more in the decision-making process could possibly make [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as to the efficacy and the type and probability of major side effects > of any given treatment. I have a feeling that options of the form "there's a 1 in 10 chance that we can give you another year, but with a near certainty that you are going to be very ill for the next 4 months, which is all you've got 9 times in 10 anyway. Would you rather have the treatment or spend at least the first two of three of those four months reasonably well?" are not presented to patients. In some cases, with some cancers, accepting that you're probably on the way out and making the best of the time left may be a better decision than "fighting" the cancer, thereby losing any value of the time you do have left. But that's clearly surrender in the military metaphor. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk > I have a feeling that options of the form "there's a 1 in 10 chance that > we can give you another year, but with a near certainty that you are > going to be very ill for the next 4 months, which is all you've got 9 > times in 10 anyway. Would you rather have the treatment or spend at > least the first two of three of those four months reasonably well?" are > not presented to patients. I think it often isn't, and may not be wanted or appropriate during the shock of the initial diagnosis. It should be available for those who do want it. In my family when we've been faced with serious illness, someone takes notes and goes off and looks stuff up - the patient did, if well enough, and then brings questions back to the doctors. It might have been an unpleasant approach for some of the doctors, but many of them were perfecly willing to cooperate, and provide as much information as the patient, and those family members involved, wanted. > In some cases, with some cancers, accepting that you're probably on the > way out and making the best of the time left may be a better decision > than "fighting" the cancer, thereby losing any value of the time you do > have left. But that's clearly surrender in the military metaphor. Oh, yes. And that decision, plus living out the short time left with as much grace as you can muster takes a lot of courage (as stated above, I don't think courage only exists where there's a possibility of affecting the outcome of the battle, to use another military metaphor). You do need the lastest medical knowledge, though, in order to decide whether the treatment is worth the risk. A friend of mine had a diagnosis of a metastatic cancer a couple of years ago, and since it's a fairly common one, and I'd known and heard of others with it, I thought for sure that like them she'd be dead in months. The initial treatments were horrendous. But since recovering from them, she's been pain-free and living at home with her husband and the baby who was born just bfore the diagnosis. She needs some assistance, since she tires easily and can't lift much or do heavy work, but she has a very good quality of life otherwise. She doesn't even have the severe back pain that was one of the initial symptoms. But there are cancers in which there's not a whole lot of point in providing more than pain relief, unless the patient really wants to hold on for a few weeks longer than nature will provide(maybe to see a grandchild born). SignatureCheryl >I have a feeling that options of the form "there's a 1 in 10 chance that >we can give you another year, but with a near certainty that you are >going to be very ill for the next 4 months, which is all you've got 9 >times in 10 anyway. Would you rather have the treatment or spend at >least the first two of three of those four months reasonably well?" are >not presented to patients. I did hear of the case of a relative of a friend who was in hospital and was presented with a choice of that sort. The doctor explained to him that without radiation treatment he would live for another one, two or maybe three months. With radiation treatment there was a chance of living for three or four times longer, although there was great uncertainty about that. The doctor explained to him what would be involved in the radiation treatment. Apart from the unpleasant side-effects of the treatment the man would spend a substantial proportion of his time suffering the disruption of being taken from the ward to the specialist treatment centre (which ISTR was in a different hospital), waiting to be treated, recovering after treatment and then being returned to the ward. More than one radiation session was needed. Accepting such hassle and disruption is an "of course" if it will effect a long-term cure or a considerable extension of life. It is a different matter if it at best can only buy a short extension of life. The time spent undergoing such treatment is time lost that could be spent in the company of family and friends. The man chose to accept palliative treament to keep him as comfortable and painfree as possible and he spent the last few weeks of his life in hospital surrounded by family and friends. My friend told me that the doctor had seemed very relieved when the patient made that choice. It seems that the doctor had offered the radiation treatment out of a sense of duty to give the patient the full range of options rather than because he thought radiation treatment would be good from the patient's point of view. >In some cases, with some cancers, accepting that you're probably on the >way out and making the best of the time left may be a better decision >than "fighting" the cancer, thereby losing any value of the time you do >have left. But that's clearly surrender in the military metaphor. Indeed. There is an older phrase that is sometimes used of a person who has died of an illness that lasted some time: the illness was "bravely borne". The person made the most of the time that was left. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.