Shocked by my friends who oppose charity
Shocked by my friends who oppose charity I have run into a very strange attitude towards cancer charity/ fundraising from two of my friends. One wouldn’t support my walk for Cancer Research UK a few years back because she believed that cancer research was the proper role of the state (would somebody please tell Messers Brown and Blair that, I don’t think they know). The other feels that the massive fundraiser that the regional cancer centre is about to undertake is misplaced because if anything needs to be done the NHS should be paying for it, even if it is things like making the wards nicer. I checked and the hospital’s fundraisers do seem to have used contributions in the recent past for things that are fairly essential, but I think that donors might like feeling that their contribution is going to a PET scanner rather than something beneficial, like improving hospital decor, but not 100% essential.
The odd thing is that the friend who wouldn’t support CRUK has had a very high-risk breast cancer and many of her relatives have died of post-menopausal breast cancer. Therefore, she has probably benefited from CRUK and I hope she doesn’t need their research in the future, but she might. The latter friend has secondary prostate cancer and therefore would probably be expected to be in favour of fundraising for the regional cancer centre. I don’t think that either of them has been spending their evenings lobbying for increased government funding for cancer research or the NHS.
Personally, I support cancer causes, although I support other causes as well because I feel that my giving is a somewhat self-interested and therefore not completely charitable. I just don’t understand cancer patients who would oppose giving from which they are likely to benefit on the grounds that the state should do it.
Are my friends just weird?
No not weird Hi Christine
No I don’t think your friends are weird…though they may not be very realistic…and possibily also a bit mean. I too am very ambivalant about the role of charity in providing reserach and support which I think should be state funded. In the 80s I would have taken the same strict line as your friends but I think I’ve got a more relaxed approach these days, though not sure where the line should be drawn between state and charitable funding (given I’m not going to see a socialist utopia in my life time!)
I was quite upset when a friend of mine wouldn’t sponsor me for the Race for Life last year cause she didn’t want money going to CRUK who test on animals. She did however send a donation to another cancer charity instead. I diagree with her reaons (I think animal testing and experimentation is sometimes necessary) but I respect that she has these principles.
Personally i’d rather have a few friends with srong principles I disagee with than friends who don’t think when they engage in silly fundraising activites (whether of the ASDA tickled pink variety or the more affluent version…spending hundreds of pounds on tickets and auctions for charity balls and cancer fashion shows.)
I keep meaning to find out more about the whole charitable industry around breast cancer. I am uncomfortable that its so much eaiser to fund raise for breast cancer than for other less ‘fashionable’ cancers and diseases.
Jane
I think funding for cancer is an extremely murky area and I think people are right to question it, but I don’t think they should ignore making a contribution to charity events because nothing’s going to change overnight.
I think the main questions that need to be asked are these:
To what extent should taxpayer be expected to fund cancer research and cancer support?
How efficient are the charities and why are there so many?
Where should the line be drawn between what the NHS should fund and what local hospital charities should fund?
What is the role of large corporations in cancer fundraising - not only companies like ASDA, but the pharmaceuticals?
These are the sorts of question the public should be asking, but it’s only when you have been affected by cancer yourself that you feel motivated to ask the questions.
In answer to Jane’s comment about why it’s easier to raise funding for breast cancer than other cancers, it’s because we live in a breast fixated society and breasts make money, even diseased ones.
I don’t think your friends’ attitude is strange Christine; until recently I took the same stand, and still do to a large extent. I’ve become more mellow lately, and perhaps a little bit more realistic - maybe it’s having cancer that’s done it. But certainly I still think cancer research should be state-funded and believe the state is being let off the hook by charities and the generosity of ordinary people who have little to give.
I did the Race for Life this year, which was the first sponsored thing I had done (well,since I was 14). I still have mixed feelings about it, especially given Tesco’s involvement; enjoyed the day though - it’s the fact that it’s women only that makes such a good atmosphere I think.
Jane a friend of mine refused to sponsor me for the same reason; I’m a vegan and I don’t wear leather or other animal products, but I too think animal testing is sometimes necessary. I always think if it’s a case of them or me, no contest. .
CRUK. I do remember an old thread, perhaps it was on the BCC boards, where a number were upset by a CRUK ad campaign. I too dislike some of their ads.
A number of friends have also commented on the admin fee for Race for Life.
I do agree that people need to be selective I tend to prefer giving in the most efficienct way possible (which is why I like the World Community Grid so much: medical research gets much more benefit than it costs me). Giving money directly is more efficient (especially with gift aid) than getting into the complications of buying stuff and having a certain percentage go to charity.
I think that there is a need for charity in part because people want to have a way of changing things. The whole cancer treatment process is such a disempowering one and at least raising a bit of money is doing something to address the situation. I wonder, too, if the tendency of people to do things like runs reflects a desire to show to themselves and others that they have recovered from the whole, dire process. However, I think that cancer research and medical research in this country is generally overly reliant on charity (and I think that the Leverhulme Trust has said this as well, or maybe it was the Wellcome Trust).
I have asked friends who know alot about politics across the political spectrum if they see any hope of the government giving more money for medical research of any type and they were rather down on the prospect, mainly because there isn’t enough support among the general public. It’s not something people vote on.
Incidently, I noticed in the paper that every 1p of Asda’s 5p reusable bag is going to BCC, which seems to be a good percentage at least, although a fairly roundabout method of doing things.
As for the plethora of charities and research foundations, I read in one of CRUK’s newsletters that there were efforts underway to map out all of the research taking place. The review had already highlighted two areas that needed more attention: these were research into prevention and something else I can’t remember, although I remember thinking that I knew about the problem already (perhaps lung cancer research?)
It is the NCRI that is supposed to be leading the way in rationalising research and duplication.
ncri.org.uk/home/index.cfm?CFID=110940&CFTOKEN=49866564
and the Government is involved as well - NCRI is mentioned in the National Cancer Plan.
Whether all this will deliver anything or just be a talking shop, who knows.
I think the reason why the public in this country doesn’t question the over reliance on charity funding for research and doesn’t hold the Government to account, is partly a reflection of our education system - which produces many aquiescent rather than questioning adults, and partly apathy.
I like this quote from Helen Keller about apathy:
“Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all – the apathy of human beings.”
UK cancer charities Hi Christine, your last post struck a chord with me as I have a nehphew who has worked as a research scientist for cancer charities (Cancer UK) since he got his Ph.D some 12 yrs ago. His speciality was apoptosis of cells, but he could only get a 2 yr post grad post. He is now 34 yrs old, back living with his parents, no home, car nor any worldy goods. He is not at all materialistic , just wants to find a cure for cancer.He is now looking at a job with an American funded company that has some £1b to do research into a vaccine for anthrax. His research has led him into a vaccine into cancer but he can’t get the funding he needs to go forward. He has to get a life, but this is not really what he wants to do - I have cancer, his grandad and uncle (my father and twin brother) died of cancer, and he wants to provide a solution.
I have found this quote:
“The disease of cancer will be banished from life by calm, unhurrying, persistent men and women …in hospitals, and laboratories, and the motive that will conquer cancer will not be pity, or horror; it will be curiosity to know how and why.”
H.G. Wells; author, humanist, historian, utopian.
I live in hope that dedicated wonderful human beings like my nephew can make a contribution to the cause of cancer, and that is why we should all make whatever contribution we can to cancer research.
Love, Liz.
Some Thoughts Thanks for the link, Daphne. I hadn’t seen that before.
Interestingly, one of the reports points out that breast cancer is not the most overfunded cancer in terms of the percentage of research money it receives versus disability adjusted life years/incidence. That honour clearly belongs to leukaemia! Breast cancer research funding isn’t that far off its relative importance in terms of funding per incidence, but it is way off on funding/lost of quality adjusted life years. One cancer really stands out as woefully underfunded: lung cancer.
Lizzie, I remember you writing in about your nephew before. I couldn’t believe how little he was earning. I hope he can find a way to get back into cancer research if he goes off and works on an anthrax vaccine. The problem is, of course, that it is really hard to raise big money in dribs and drabs, which is what happens because of the overreliance on charity. I participated in a very large walk and the entire proceeds wouldn’t have even paid your nephew’s salary.
Oddly, when I was doing some work today I ran across the statistics for government spending on research and development for all of the really wealthy countries. The sad thing is that the UK is actually better than most other governments in funding health research, when you consider things like the population of the UK and its wealth. The US government is much more generous, but is completely in a league of its own. I suppose that that is why there is money for an anthrax vaccine.
The statistics I looked at were long-term ones as well, going back to 1980, so it’s not like the government played a big role in medical research and then suddenly reversed it. So, I still don’t really understand why my friends thought that the government would step in and do this. Maybe it is something the government should do, but the government hasn’t done it generally over the past twenty years. Cancer care is perhaps a different matter, since the government has long provided that.