LETTERS: POLITICAL WILL NEEDED TO FIGHT CANCER

To the editor:

I was in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 26 when tens of thousands of Americans converged on the Mall in a March to Conquer Cancer. When it comes to cancer issues, I take things very personally, because I can genuinely say of the cancer experience: "Been there! Done that!"Of course, I know that I am not alone. The American Cancer Society estimates that more than 8 million living Americans have a history of cancer. I also know that we survivors are the lucky ones since this year alone over half a million American cancer sufferers will die -- a death rate of more than 1,500 a day. If the direct cost in human suffering were not enough to rate this as a major issue, cancer is also an economic burden. The National Cancer Institute, for example, estimates cancer costs at over $95 billion annually, a total that comprises both direct treatment expenses and the cost of care for the terminally ill. Although the federal government spends $2 billion on the search for cures to cancers, and this represents the highest level of medical research funding provided to target one medical problem, the total is equivalent to but one penny for every 10 of taxpayer dollars collected. While treatments for many cancers have considerably improved both survivorship and longevity over the last 20 years, for other cancers the prognosis is little different now. As a result, one is forced to wonder if the current level of federal commitment is either enough or is appropriately directed. When considering strategies for attacking the cancer problem, we must recognize that for many cancers -- there are some 100 different kinds -- causal agents inducing the disease include environmental pollutants released into our environment as a result of human activity. Death, disease and economic hardship suffered by Americans as a result of these carcinogenic chemicals are considered by many to be an acceptable cost, the essential price of doing business. Such folks seem to think that we exist to benefit the economy, not vice versa. I am not among them. My guess is that, if we cared enough to address cancer from the perspective of prevention rather than cure, we could probably make serious inroads into the problem. Attacking cancer by reducing carcinogens in the environment seems as likely to produce dramatic results for many cancers as does the commitment of yet more money to research. This would, however, take the political will to demand appropriate action of our elected representatives in state and federal governments.

If we wish to address cancer by prevention, a far more humane approach if we could do it, we need this political will. We should not continue to send to Washington and Jefferson City the present crop of Republican politicians who seem more to espouse pro-cancer positions than anti-cancer positions. These politicians have variously pledged to defend the tobacco industry or gut health regulations and health agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, that stand between Americans and polluted air, food and water and increased cancer risks. When it comes to cancer, politicians and commentators are part of the problem, or they are part of the solution. If we wish our risk of suffering a severe invasive cancer to drop below current American Cancer Society estimates of one in two for men and one in three for women, we will make our voices heard at the ballot box.

ALAN JOURNET

Cape Girardeau