It is safe to say that cancer is a huge epidemic that still lingers in our society today. It kills as much as 560,000 Americans and it is the biggest killer in lives of Americans under the age of 85. The LA Times states,
“Although cancer has touched the lives of several presidential candidates, few talk about it on the campaign trail”(Dallek).
Deaths such from cancer should become an issue to talk about in debates. Many politicians have gone through or known people who have gone through the whole cancer ordeal. People such as former Senator Edwards’ wife who had her breast cancer spread to her bones. This issue comes to mind as a huge epidemic that needs to be mentioned as an issue in need of solutions funded by the candidate. Debates from the citizens have been towards the politicians in hopes for them to establish a credible cancer policy. The people of America are deeply affected by this case because of how politicians aren't paying close attention to this issue as they run for office. In order to gain the votes of Americans they need to address the needs of people which includes this issue of cancer. Cases such as “Edwards, Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Brownback and Huckabee participating in a forum on cancer sponsored by MSNBC and Lance Armstrong’s LiveStrong foundation” need to be administered more because there have been arguments of how deeply this issue is being addressed (Dallek).
People fear cancer more than terrorism because how it sweeps the nations with many deaths. President Bush has caused more uprising to this issue due to cutting the National Cancer Institute’s budget by a total of 12% in the last four years. As an informed citizen, I believe that we should take care of our home before we take care of the world and try being all heroes about it. Cancer kills many lives and the need for funds towards that issue or even to be addressed is needed. During the CNN’s YouTube Democratic debate “a Long Island breast cancer survivor implied that fellow survivors and their families should make cancer prevention and treatment a key issue on which they cast their ballots” (Dallek).
This portrays how the issue of cancer does not come into play in campaigns more often than they need to. In the future if more millions are affected, the issue of terrorism will be directed somewhere else as a disease becomes a bigger issue due to the many affected by it such as cancer. It should be an issue talked more in campaigning due to its toll on the citizens of America.
Works Cited: LA Times Sunday issue Sept. 9 2007 , An issue on remission by Matthew Dallek (LA Times Opinion)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Jerome,
I read this article in the L.A. Times last week and I 100% agree with you. I think that America is so obsessed with our overseas affairs that it has turned a cold shoulder on the troubles and tribulations it has at home.
The article explained that cancer does not come up as an issue in presidential campaigns for 3 main reasons: "The first is because no politician wants to be associated with a failed war against an intractable disease". "Another reason is that cancer advocacy groups-unlike the AIDS community...-lack a cohesive political organization". Each type of cancer is classified under its own category. "Finally, in the minds of many Americans, cancer seems and immutable law of nature that cannot be altered".
I believe that this is really sad: the fact that politicians are more selfish than willing to help others. Americans are dying daily of cancer and its complications, but the politicians are not even attempting to bring up the issue, despite the fact that their own loved ones are facing the difficulties associated with it. The government has also slowly reduced funds allotted towards cancer research. Have people started giving up? Is it too late to make a difference? I believe that cancer is an important topic to discuss in political campaigns, especially because so many people are affected by it yearly. It is even more important than the topic of abortion, illegal immigration, and assisted suicide- topics that sprawl the newspapers and campaigns daily.
Dude i totally agree with you man. we are spending more and more money to kill people than we are to save people. The chances of any of us getting attacked by a terrorist are amazingly lower than the chances of us getting cancer. I personally know the evils of cancer, with my mother being a cancer survior. i know i am not the only one who knows this pain. many of the candidates have had themselves or a family mother experience cancer yet none has a way to fight this. My idea give the 10 wealthiest americans cancer and we'll have a cure in a month
I agree with Jerome on this one because our government is overly concerned with foreign affairs than domestic affairs. Cancer is one of the primary causes of death in our country. Before we can meddle with other countries’ affairs, we have to deal wit our own first. We technically have more problems in the United States than outside of the United States. Candidates should deal with this problem now instead of following the Bush administration’s actions in not doing anything. Many people are affected by cancer and there should be progress on the efforts of finding a cure. THIS CAN ACTUALLY SAVE LIVES.
I've got to agree with all four of you. It's not just important medical studies like cancer research that's having its funding cut. I'd find it hard to believe that the government would reduce funding for something that important if I hadn't seen the effects of it before.
They're cutting arts funding too. Might not be 'life saving' stuff, but it's still budget cutting.
Because of the budget cuts on arts - California ranks below Kazakhstan in funding the arts.
So if they can do that to the arts, they can do it to the sciences. None of it's right.
I think Ed's made a good point - why are we spending so much money on finding new and improved ways of killing people instead of working on saving lives in our own country? What are we doing to our own culture?
Post a Comment