 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / December 2007Pca in the shadow of breast cancer. New thread.
This info was included in a post I sent to Safire in a previous thread -so you may already have read it, with apologies.. I think it deserves a thread of its own. Political correctness, and the fact it may seem to disrespect women cancer sufferers has kept the subject smothered for years. But there is now an awareness stirring that PCa patients are being put unneccesarily at risk by unbalanced funding, and that PCa professionals are being stretched and working with difficulty with growing numbers of patients and inadequate funds. This informed newsgroup is an appropriate place to take on highlighting these facts, because it would help future as well as present sufferers. Thanks for all contributions to help round and focus the picture. Best wishes to all MikeHi http://www.giveafewbob.org/ a disease which is now killing one man every hour in the UK. Shockingly, although it's almost as common as breast cancer, it gets a fraction of the research funding. (Prostate Cancer Research Foundation). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/663688.stm (it's been going on for years) The announcement of extra funding, while welcomed by the Prostate Cancer Charity, was criticised for not going far enough in light of the dramatic rise in cases year on year. It came as the public health minister admitted that inequality exists between men's and women's health. It has previously been estimated that eight times as much is spent on women's health as men's. Though breast and cervical cancer are very high profile, more men died of cancer than women in 1998 - there were 37,150 deaths from cancer in men under 75 compared to 30,387 in women. Professor John Waxman, chairman of the Prostate Cancer Charity, said: " .. £1m will not go very far. A million pounds will probably only fund six researchers for three years. Funding for research into prostate cancer needs to be increased to the level of that for breast cancer.___________ http://www.nursinginpractice.com/default.asp?title=Governmenturgedtodoublethenum berofprostatecancerspecialistnurses&page=article.display&article.id=6638 "Every year 35,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer in the UK and specialist nurses play an essential role in their care and support. It is unacceptable that clinical nurse specialists for men with prostate cancer have on average the highest workload when compared with other cancers. The Prostate Cancer Charity calls on the government and the NHS to double the number of specialist nurses working in prostate cancer http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article _id=499508&in_page_id=1774 4th December 2007 Daily Mail Ministers have ruled out a prostate cancer screening programme --saying there is not enough evidence that it would be effective. Older people are routinely screened for breast and bowel cancer, but there are no plans to extend this to prostate cancer, despite the fact it is the biggest cancer killer of UK men. The Prostate Cancer Charity attacked ministers for not funding trials of new tests to spot the cancer. Gordon Brown (Prime Minister) announced in September that breast-cancer screening would be extended to the ages of 47 to 73, covering 200,000 more women by 2012 Yesterday, Mr Johnson also announced £100million to be spent on "digital mammography" scanning equipment, which is better at spotting breast cancer among younger women. Every cancer specialist hospital should have one of these by 2010. http://www.uclh.nhs.uk/News/%E2%80%98Give+a+few+Bob%E2%80%99+to+end+prostate+can cer.htm (Pca gets one-tenth of the funding.) Mark Emberton, a Consultant Urologist at UCH who specialises in prostate cancer, is a Trustee of the Prostate Cancer Research Foundation, "Men's health issues often take a backseat in comparison to other well known diseases," he said. "The disease kills a man every hour in the UK and has almost as many victims as breast cancer, yet receives only one-tenth of the funding. A lot better in USA then, eh, Safire? http://beoutrageous.com/IYP/prostate1.htm - (read the whole of it, Saf.) An estimated 317,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer last year, and some 41,000 of them died . Meanwhile, 184,000 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, and 44,000 died. (The American Cancer Society) From 1990-1997, the National Cancer Institute has directed $1.8 billion toward breast cancer research. Over the same period, the NCI gave out $376 million to prostate cancer research projects. http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071209/APN/712090622& template=apart The prostate coalition is also working to improve funding for research. Federal funding for breast cancer research is almost twice that for prostate cancer research, according to the group <hearsay omitted> > http://beoutrageous.com/IYP/prostate1.htm - (read the whole of it, > Saf.) An estimated 317,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer > last year, and some 41,000 of them died…. Meanwhile, 184,000 women > were diagnosed with breast cancer, and 44,000 died. (The American > Cancer Society) see seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/sections.html table I-1 Estimated deaths for 2007 All Races, by Sex: Breast Cancer Female Deaths: 40,460 Prostate Cancer Male Deaths: 27,050 Maybe your source is too outrageous to be credible. His statement that "An estimated 317,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer last year, and some 41,000 of them died…" is clearly erroneous. Do you believe that, on diagnosis, you have a 14% risk to die within about a year? > From 1990-1997, the National Cancer Institute has directed $1.8 > billion toward breast cancer research. Over the same period, the NCI > gave out $376 million to prostate cancer research projects. And what does that have to do with your original complaint that not enough was available for treatment? Oh, I see, it's just one big female conspiracy against men. Hi Mike, If you would email me I'll send you a PM. Ron S. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html > ... > Maybe your source is too outrageous to be credible. His statement that > "An estimated 317,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer > last year, and some 41,000 of them died…" is clearly erroneous. Do you > believe that, on diagnosis, you have a 14% risk to die within about a > year? I think the numbers may be right but the wording was imprecise. It should have said 317,000 men diagnosed last year, 41,000 died last year, not 41,000 "of them" died. >> ... >> Maybe your source is too outrageous to be credible. His statement that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have said 317,000 men diagnosed last year, 41,000 died last year, not > 41,000 "of them" died. I agree with you that that is what he actually meant to say. But based on an error like that, I seriously doubt that his interpretation of the numbers is correct. As discussed, there is a wide margin between the NCI/SEER mortality numbers and the number he presented. More to the point, the idea that High Intensity Focused Ultrasound *treatment* is limited because cancer *research* funding is predominantly spent on "female" cancers is not "politically incorrect" but just nonsensical. Mmmm, my calculator says 12.93375% but who's counting. It should have been clear to the meanest intelligence that 41k men died that year and that 317k were newly diagnosed, ie it's pretty serious! What are the comparable figures for breast cancer, ovarian cancer and lung cancer, so that we can get some perspective. And, come on, the squeaking wheel always gets the grease, so breast cancer will, so far, always get more political and social attention, and therefore money,for all sorts of reasons. The aim should be to increase political and social attention on prostate cancer not moan that breast cancer gets too much. And don't mention Iraq. Arguably the worst "disease" in recent history and one that was totally preventable. tt > ... > I think it deserves a thread of its own. Political correctness, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > inadequate funds. > ... These issues are complicated and hard to evaluate. There are many interrelated issues and focusing on one, gender, doesn't tell the whole story. Research funds often follow key discoveries. If someone discovers an important new fact that opens new areas of research, more money is often allocated for that. For example, a lot of money went into tamoxifen related research when it was discovered that that compound made from the bark of the yew tree could help breast cancer patients. Another issue is advocacy. Women's groups have been very active in advocating breast cancer research. When a congressman gets a lot of appeals for more funds from people, he is more likely to respond than if he doesn't. It's not necessarily a matter of political correctness. Political correctness probably does play a role, but perhaps it's not as wrong headed as it may seem. I think the women are right that more money had been spent on illnesses of men than of women up until the big breast cancer advocacy movement. But whatever the case may be, I think it's probably a mistake to see the world in terms of men vs. women and prostate cancer vs. breast cancer. Personally, if research funds were limited, as they are, I might be inclined to take a bit from both kinds of cancer research to stimulate Alzheimer's research. Dying of cancer is bad, but we do have treatments and pain palliatives. Alzheimer's may affect just as many people, there are no treatments, and the impact is devastating both on the patients and their families. Or, better still, forgive me for saying this, if we could take the money spent in one single week in Iraq (said to be $4 billion) and give it to medical research. It would be a tremendous boost to all fields. Alan
|
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
|
©2008 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.