"Battling" Cancer

The news that John McCain has brain cancer gives me an opportunity to talk about many things. I mean it's John McCain! There's so much that can be said about the man (in a good way). But since talking about a politician almost always ends up about politics (and I'm trying to keep this blog apolitical), I want to talk about cancer instead. Specifically, our perceptions of cancer.

Cancer is just part of life for many people. As we get older, the cell programming gets a little confused (mutations) and cells begin to grow out of control. When we are younger, our immune systems can defeat cancer, but it gets sloppy as it gets older. And since each cancer cell is a clone of its parent cell, if the body misses one individual, it will miss them all. With increased lifespans and an increase in carcinogenic compounds present in the world, we will see rising rates of cancer. Already cancer effects about 1 out of every 3 Americans (I think. I haven't looked it up recently).

However, I have a problem with the terminology that we use to describe cancer patients. We talk about the "fight" against cancer. We say that someone has "lost" or "won" the "battle" with cancer. We refer to "weapons" that we can use to stop cancer. This military terminology is inappropriate.

First off, it places cancer in the role of an enemy. While I'm certainly not saying that cancer is good, it is not conscious. It is not acting with a will. While it is true that the dictionary does say that an enemy is not necessarily a person (an object can also be an enemy if it causes harm), it necessarily personifies cancer. When I think of an enemy, I think of someone who has a thought or direction (if misguided) behind their actions. I could call someone who is trying to break into my house an enemy. I would not call a sharp rock an enemy. I might call a hostile coworker an enemy. I probably would not refer to a mosquito as an enemy. (Of course, maybe that's just me. Many people do refer to mosquitoes as the enemy. I certainly do treat my yard against them. But I don't personify them or call the mosquito fog a chemical weapon.) Mislabeling a disease puts us on shaky footing for understanding the disease.

Secondly (and more importantly), wars have winners and losers. I don't know if it is just an American thing, but in my mind, the strong win wars and the weak lose them. So in the back of our minds we hear "She was strong enough to beat cancer" or "He was just too weak to overcome cancer". What sort of sense does this make? You can't will yourself to be stronger (not precisely true, but true enough here). Dying from cancer doesn't mean that someone failed. A conscious effort of the will cannot prevent cancer. Life choices that we make can affect the chances of developing cancer, but that's not the same thing.

A third minor point. The drugs that we use to treat cancer are terrible "weapons". We don't use nuclear weapons in war because the cause a lot of collateral damage and civilian death. Same with chemo and radiation therapy. These tools do terrible things to our body. They just (usually) happen to kill the cancer cells faster than they kill healthy cells. The (good) weapon analogy falls apart here.

I understand the need to personify life. It's one of the things that we do as humans. However, language shapes our perception of reality. We need to make sure that we use language that accurately reflects the true nature of things. Maybe a military description is good for explaining to children, but (most) adults are ready for something more real. Why not "suffering from cancer" instead of "battling cancer"? How about "passed away due to cancer" rather than "lost the battle"? These terms reflect seriousness without applying the martial language. Maybe their less imaginative, but sometimes we need that in the world.