Over 10 years ago,
The Oncologist published an article on cancer as a metaphor.
We often
talk to patients about fighting their cancer and winning the war, and that is
often how we think about oncology. We invoke military imagery to help us
describe the ordeal our patients go through.
With all due respect
to the journal editors, it seems to me that this was a bit backwards. I think the
more correct phrasing is that we use fighting a war as a metaphor for the
treatment of cancer.
We have
inundated our language with bellicose metaphors. Take, for instance, the
language of immunology: lymphocytes are “deployed” or “mobilized,” the
protagonists are “killer” cells and the images are all of “battles” for
supremacy and survival. Clinicians talk about a “therapeutic armamentarium,”
and I am sure many of us tell our patients that we know of a new “magic
bullet.”
In the next
paragraph, the article goes on to say
The fact
is that Richard Nixon and Ted Kennedy started to talk about the war on cancer in the 1970s,
and we have had updates ever since.
At the end of 1971,
President Nixon signed into law the National Cancer Act, one of the highlights
of his otherwise dark legacy:
National Cancer Act of 1971
The
National Cancer Institute was established in its current form by the National
Cancer Act of 1971, signed into law by President Richard Nixon. This
legislation was an amendment to the Public Health Service Act of 1944 and
represented the US commitment to what President Nixon described as the
“war on cancer,” which had become the nation’s second leading cause of death by
1970.
Admittedly we are
still some way from achieving the lofty goals included in the 1971 legislation,
but we have certainly made significant progress.
While I may have occasionally
slipped into battle language in over 8 years of writing this blog, I have to
admit I have never been especially fond of its use. If I am fighting a war, who
exactly is the enemy? I can only see two possibilities. The first is that we
are our own worst enemies in that our unhealthy lifestyles have contributed to
our disease. That explanation is simply a guilt with which no one receiving a
cancer diagnosis would care to live. The second is that cancer is caused by some
Divine Being. That explanation would seem to fly in the face of everything we
are supposed to believe about religion and its role in our lives. Perhaps it is
the statistician in me, but I just look at this as a largely random outcome of
being a human being, nothing more, nothing less.
I have thought of
this often during these past eight years, but I was reminded of it yesterday
when I heard United States Senator Mitch McConnell say that “loony lies and
conspiracy theories are cancer for the Republican Party and our country.” While
war may not be an appropriate metaphor for cancer, perhaps cancer is an
appropriate metaphor for the war currently raging in this country. Ridding
our body politic of this “disease” will require significant effort to reduce
the anger that has come to dominate our lives and allow that “cancer” to
flourish.
Are we up to the
task?
Love,
Rebecca