The Politics of Disease, Briefly

Thought-provoking

And many people suffering cardio vascular disease have a life style that caiused it, but they aren't condemned from many pulpits or political ads. I think that was part of the point the Dr was trying to make.

AIDS is preventable. We know how you get AIDS and how to prevent it. With cancer, we know what risk factors increase the likelihood of getting the disease and the heredity factors in to the equation but we still don't know why some people get it and some people don't when exposed to the same factors. Cancer risks can be vastly reduced, with reducing your know lifestyle changes, but it is never guaranteed. You cannot get AIDS unless you transfer body fluids.

With us knowing how AIDS is transmitted I am feeling less and less sympathetic for certain people who get AIDS. Children born of mothers infected, blood transfusion recipients, rape victims, and medical/first responders who come in contact with blood I have a lot of sympathy. People who contacted it sexually with a willing partner in the last 10 years my sympathy is running out. Same goes for people who started smoking in the last 20 years or so also.

Susan, this is thought provoking. Can you elaborate with an example or two on this point:

"I offer the possibility that many, if not most cancers are much more social and political in nature than might initially be indicated."

I'm just curious as to more of what you're thinking around this, and if you have something specific in mind.

Julia, briefly I'll respond. Cancer has genetic markers, but over time, I've seen that it's often our own triggering of those markers that initiates the mutation of our cells. Food, drugs, activity levels, environmental elements all contribute to cancer. If one is more intentional about one's consumption or lack thereof, one might avoid triggering a cancer marker.

I really, truly don't see how that differs from AIDS/HIV. Take the moral sentence off of those contract HIV, just as it's been taken off of those who develop cancer, say cervical cancer (please note that this link is graphic) and look at disease without judgement.

That's my stance. But with remarks and attitudes such as Dr. Ammann's and Winston Smith's, whether in condemnation or not, but that their POV contains a moral position, detracts from helping those who carry one disease or another.

And I hasten to add that I'm NOT suggesting that those with cancer somehow lived a life that caused the cancer to happen. Some cancers happen that way, others do not. Just like some HIV cases happen due to the person's lifestyle and others do not.

For "normal" people there is no spiritual component to any of the mentioned diseases ... for "religious" people there may often be "moral" components which are often "judgmental" (and full of stress) ... for both themselves because such "judgment" is not highest truth and for others whom the criticism is aimed ... possibly with guilt all around ...


But dis-ease is a lack of ease (peace) due to stress which creates INternal conflict and imbalances ... those being INner results not unlike what goes on OUTside in our world conflicts and wars ... things that if not discovered the truth of the why of, will continue on to complete death and destruction ...

Outside or Inside, the results are the same ... it is really our choice based upon how we look at things and react to them ... there are no accidents in the greater Karmic picture ...

IMnsHO.

Susan, I'm glad that you posted this. It's an unfortunate fact that politics, mores and social stigma are factors in the treatment of most diseases.

Having worked in this area, I might make a few points on this very interesting discussion. The major difference between AIDS and the major current deadly diseases, is that AIDS is an infectious disease. As Winston said, we do know how to prevent infection. The challenge is one of public health awareness, as in Africa, where social and political concerns have sometimes, tragically interfered with educational and public health intervention. The good news is that the AIDS epidemic in the US has peaked, and death from AIDS is becoming much more rare (less new cases, and less mortality from existing cases.

Cancer is also not an epidemic. The incidence and mortality from cancer has been decreasing for a few years, largely because of decreasing smoking rates.

Susan is right that we know many of the risk factors that cause cancer - smoking topping the list by far. Smoking is the single most dangerous activity that a human being can engage in, including combat, sky diving etc. It has a 50% chance of death. If there is anyone reading this who smokes, please stop. Today.

But, Susan is also right that there are caused of cancer that we do not understand, and unlike infectious diseases like AIDS, the chronic diseases 1 through 9 are multi factorial and complex. We can reduce the odds of getting cancer, heart disease, lung disease by not smoking, eating well, exercising etc, but we cannot guarantee that we will be disease free.

There has been a steady decrease in AIDS among gay men for many years, which shows that public health intervention and education works.

I also agree with JD, that there is a political connection to many diseases, breast cancer comes to mind. I find this unfortunate at best.

For sake of discussion: Should diseases be treated equally? Or should cancers be given priority?

Julia

When you ask treated, do you mean research? What do you mean by priority

Research efforts, public support/outreach, and treatment.