Whilst procrastinating, I felt the urge to start this blog, after (whilst also, maybe, procrastinating a litte on Facebook...) reading my daily posts on various lung cancer pages I 'like'. (If you are without Facebook then I apologise for how little sense that may have made.)
It's becoming a tad disgraceful that cancer funding, treatment, and overall positive awareness is high for the major cancers, breast cancer is becoming more and more curable as years go by it seems, however, why is this not the case for lung cancer? Upon researching, you find that statistics for this - the number 1 cancer kill might I add - are hardly improving at all, it is the LEAST funded type of cancer, how can this be?
So this is where I would like to throw my questions in, is this dreadful lack of positive reinforcement, this lack of awareness, this lack of funding and hope due to the stigma attached to lung cancer. Most lung cancers are provoked by smoking, this is true, however there is a lot of people that have never smoked that are becoming victimised as well. Do we automatically put blame on lung cancer sufferers, it must be because they smoked, and if they didn't, well they must've been up to something to cause the cells in their lungs to mutate..? It is utterly unbelievable to think that we consciously would say this, but so much concentration is put into just warning smokers that lung cancer has become some dirty, smoker's disease, when this isn't the case at all.
This is just the start, I wanted to get some initial ranting down before I get round to writing a more substantial and well-informed piece. Opinions welcome, but please do not assume this is a blog to bash somebody, lung cancer is in my family, and my only issue is with the lack of awareness and funding towards what is the most dangerous cancer.
No comments:
Post a Comment