Cancer.
It should be classified on the list of 7 dirty words. It truly is the devil's disease. I have family that have fought the fight against cancer. I have friends that have fought the fight against cancer. It is extremely difficult to overcome, especially if you receive a late diagnoses, like so many do. I have heard countless adults say they can't go through chemo again- how chemo is essentially taking away their will to live. They just want to feel healthy again.
Cancer is devastating to go through as an adult. Imagine if you're a child. Imagine not knowing what is wrong, or why your mommy and daddy let all these strangers around you. Imagine not knowing why you feel icky, or why you are being hurt. While it may not be as common as a runny nose, cancer is not nearly uncommon enough.
Andrew Becker, the American Cancer Society's director of media relations, recently wrote a blog post in response to the facebook grassroots project of wanting Mattel to make a bald barbie. The people behind this movement felt that the bald barbie would help little girls going through chemo, or little girls who have family who is going through chemo.
Mr. Becker took it upon himself to deem childhood cancer as "exceedingly rare". He said there are already too many products out there that are sold for cancer products. He compared childhood cancer to a lightening strike, and stated that he was worried about Mattel, since most to all profits would be donated to a charity like St Jude. He stated that cancer among women who have a young child in the barbie demographic is rare. He stated that telling others about childhood cancer will simply scare too many people. He compared it to those who are screened for breast cancer, and have a double mastectomy because they may get breast cancer. He stated that people would be better off just donating $10-50 dollars to cancer research, rather than buying a barbie.
In a nut shell, this man is a disgrace.
46 children a day will be diagnosed with cancer. 7 children a day will die from cancer. That does not sound "exceedingly rare". 1 in every 300 children will be diagnosed with cancer before the age of 20. That does not sound "exceedingly rare". Your chances of being struck by lightening? 1 in a million. That, my friend, is rare.
.01 cent for every dollar donated to ACS goes to pediatric cancer. 1 cent. Clearly, ACS does not see pediatric cancer as a significant cancer, even though it is ranked as the top killer of children under the age of 15. Places like St Jude or CureSearch donate much more- St Jude donates .81 cents for every dollar raised, while over 90% of every dollar donated to CureSearch is donated.
As of about an hour ago, Mr. Becker has retracted his original article and put an apology up in place of his disgraceful post- an apology that is falling on deaf ears. Once you say words, you can't take them back, no matter how much you apologize. This man has hurt thousands upon thousands of people who have lost children to cancer, have children fighting cancer, or have loved ones that have passed due to pediatric cancer. He completely minimized it, and acted as if it was some made up disease.
To anyone who happens to read this: I urge you to support a worthy pediatric cancer association in place of supporting the American Cancer Society. This group seems to have no sense of reality in the fight against cancer.
In 20 years, the FDA has only initially approved ONE drug for childhood cancer. Half, HALF, of the chemo used for childhood cancer are 25 years old. In two and a half decades, they haven't found ANYTHING better?
Something needs to be done. Something needs to be said. Someone has got to stand up for children. Pediatric cancer is real- you don't get to sweep it under a rug and pretend its rare and doesn't exist. You don't get to keep the fear to yourself because you might scare others.
Someone needs to be a voice for children.
http://www.jessicajoyrees.com/ <~~~12 year old girl who blogged her way through cancer treatments. She lost her battle in early January.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Starring-Scarlett/134652843297708?ref=ts&sk=wall & http://www.starringscarlett.com/ <~~Scarlett, a little 15 month old girl who was diagnosed with a brain tumor at 2 months of age. She is currently still fighting, but doing wonderfully.
http://www.calliecheer.org/ <~~Callie, who is 3, is battling leukemia.
https://www.facebook.com/fitzgeraldcancerfund & http://myfamilyhascancerx2.blogspot.com/ & http://newmomnewcancer.blogspot.com/ <~~Story of Keiza and Mike. Keiza was diagnosed with cancer, then a few months later than infant daughter was diagnosed with an unrelated cancer. Baby Saoirse lost her battle in December 2011.
http://www.willlacey.com/p/who-is-will.html <~~Will, diagnosed with cancer at 7 months old. He is still fighting.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Prayers-for-our-Sweet-Baby-Rae/348288311863498#!/pages/Prayers-for-our-Sweet-Baby-Rae/348288311863498?sk=info <~~Rae, almost 5, battling cancer since early 2011.
http://www.miettesjourney.com/ & https://www.facebook.com/miettesjourney <~~~Miette, a 5 year old with an inoperable tumor.
And just in case you still think its rare, I did this search and came up with this in 2 minutes. Imagine what I could come up with in a substantial amount of time.
Lane Goodwin
Logan Sinclair
Abby Grace
Zayley Oliver
Chase Daniel
Anna Rose
Jacob's Journey
Lincoln Daniel Jones
Trevor Wright
Ethan Jostad
Hope for Mara
Team Caden
Peyton Behrens
Hannah Smith
Fight For Maddie
Magic for Micheila
I'm sorry, Mr. Becker, but you are completely and utterly wrong. The only way you can "right" this situation is to resign, immediately. Otherwise, the world will see exactly where, and what, the ACS stands for- and it isn't for children.
****Edited to add:
As stated above, Mr. Becker deleted his original posting, and instead put up an "apology". Unfortunately for him, his words are still out there. Below is a copy of his original posting, first seen on the ACS website.
"You may have seen in the news that a Facebook campaign is underway to pressure Mattel, the maker of Barbie Dolls, to manufacture a bald Barbie. Cancer is one of, but not the sole reason for this campaign. The group’s Facebook page notes,
“We would like to see a Beautiful and Bald Barbie made to help young girls who suffer from hair loss due to cancer treatments, Alopecia or Trichotillomania. Also, for young girls who are having trouble coping with their mother’s hair loss from chemo.”
To the extent that this effort is about fighting cancer, we should ask ourselves what it accomplishes, who would benefit, and while we’re at it, how about asking if a bald Barbie could in fact do more harm than good for kids and parents, not to mention Mattel.
In a world already littered with cancer totems such as rubber bracelets and pink everything (a limited number of which are from ACS initiatives) , do we need one more thing whose function is to “raise awareness” about cancer? Is raising awareness worthwhile? Over at Mary Tyler Mom, who herself is the mother of a child who died from cancer, the answer is a resounding “no.” She makes the excellent suggestion that a donation of $10-$20 to support cancer research would make far more of an impact than buying a doll.
We know that funding more research is key, and every dollar helps, but who would benefit from sales of these dolls? Would it really be about fundraising?
The downside to raising awareness has been well documented by activists in the breast cancer arena. Awareness of breast cancer, for example, has been so thoroughly achieved, and many women are so afraid of the words breast cancer, that about one in 20 who are diagnosed with LCIS, a condition that may lead to breast cancer, are choosing bilateral mastectomy; the surgical removal of both breasts.
This isn’t to say that awareness doesn’t have an important role in defeating cancer. It can be incredibly important when it comes to informing people about ways to reduce risk or about getting recommended screenings regularly. But there may be better ways to attack childhood cancer. Just like radiation and chemotherapy, awareness must be deployed thoughtfully and carefully.
Childhood cancer is exceedingly rare. I would also argue that cancer is rare among the age group of women likely to have daughters young enough to play with Barbies. Women have about a one in 50 chance of developing any kind of cancer before the age of 40 . Which brings me to the claim that bald Barbies can help improve the self-image of little girls who are faced with having lost their hair, or seeing their mothers lose their hair. If they are mass marketed, many of these dolls will end up in the hands of girls who luckily aren’t likely to be touched by cancer in themselves or their mothers. But could they end up being terrorized by the prospect of it in a far outsized proportion to their realistic chances? There is no reason to create this sort of fear. It’s why we don’t see advocates calling for lightning strike dolls.
My final concern is the no-win position Mattel finds itself in. Last year the company went above and beyond, and made one bald Barbie for a four-year-old who was going through chemotherapy. Now the company risks a severe backlash of ill will if it does not accede to the demands of the social media mob. After all, what is more sympathetic than a little girl with cancer? How could this corporation be so unfeeling as to not make the major investment required to put a new product on store shelves? What happens when the next group demands a custom Barbie to represent its social concerns?
Sadly, some 1340 children under age 14 are projected to die from cancer this year. Each one is a tragedy, and they and their families deserve sympathy and support, but it is critically important to pull back from this exercise in consumer bullying and ask whether the need this movement is rising to meet is as big as imagined, and whether it will result in any meaningful support reaching those who neeed it. "
Disgraceful.
No comments:
Post a Comment