lose the battle, win the war
Every so often a subject pops into the public domain that really warrants a serious, sensible and, God forbid, a mature debate. And just occasionally it’s one I have some (second-hand?) experience of. T’was the case t’other week when, former editor of the British Medical Journal, Dr Richard Smith, put forward his surprisingly radical opinion on the best way to die.
Notwithstanding our understandable aversion to the subject of our own death, and contrary to our increasingly liberal view of society, death is still taboo. From the time we’re born we’re dying and, as is oft joked about, death & taxes are the only staples of life, so the sooner we accept it the better. Dr Smith probably knows more about death than most people would want to and I, for one, am all for hearing his view. (On a totally unrelated note, but for the same reasons, wouldn’t it be great to know which way Radio 4 Today’s John Humphrys is going to vote in the up and coming general election – he spends every day grilling our erstwhile politicians and discussing the topics of the day with the great & good and consequently is in a far better position to make that call than I am. Where John leads, I would follow. Seeing this through to its logical end-game, John Humphrys should be singularly allowed to select the government, its leader and the cabinet!)
Anyway, back to the subject in hand. Dr Smith believes that, given the choice, cancer ain’t that bad a way to pop your clogs. The nature of the disease he says, gives you time to “say goodbye, reflect on your life, leave last messages, sort out your affairs, perhaps visit special places and special people for the last time”. This, he believes is far more agreeable than creeping dementia, medically intrusive organ failure or even the immediate ‘flick-of-the-switch’ nature of the heart-attack, brain-tumour, stroke or fatal accident. Now, the good doctor accepts that this somewhat both a romanticised and generalised view as it doesn’t take account of age or the specific cancer, but I do get where he’s going on this. Cancer is predominantly a disease of old-age and will become more & more prevalent as our life-span increases. Irrespective of the billions that are swallowed in the search for the holy-grail of its cure, cancer is, contrary to public knowledge, not one disease but can be numbered in the hundreds and each can be very different in nature, effect and treatment. Consequently, we need to pick our battles against it. My belief is that we need to focus this research, and hence the money, upon the ones that appear to specifically afflict the young and the ones where investment can positively register a larger impact on a larger proportion of the populace. I concede this may in certain instances appear conflicting but we need to work hard to prevent cancer where we can but also accept defeat when we can’t.
I’ve mentioned elsewhere and in the past, that I found the disease to also be an industry and upon diagnosis, that industry kicks into operation with a vengeance, often irrespective of such niggly details as the nature of that particular cancer, or the desires of that particular patient. In certain cases, and with certain cancers, if the disease doesn’t get you, rest assured the industry will.
