Oct 7, 2010 09:13AM - edited Oct 7, 2010 09:14AM by lovemygarden
Madalyn is so right: "This is not a cute, pink, fluffy disease." It is also not (or more correctly, SHOULD NOT BE) a marketing opportunity, nor a (very effective, btw) vehicle for company A, B, C, D et etc to increase their corporate bottom line - especially in the month of October. Unfortunately it has been co-opted to be both of those things. There is an illuminating article in another thread on this topic wherein several economists discuss how the use of The Pink not only increases a company's sales of those particular products but also their sales across-the-board because the Pink usage can skew a consumer's perception of that company into a more favorable light than previously (whether or not the company actually deserves it).
And it is so true that we can't see where all the money raised is going, and what is more, how much (what percentage) of each donation goes to what purpose. AFAIK the only organization that donates 100% of all contributions to RESEARCH is Stand Up 2 Cancer. So if you donate say $100 to SU2C, you know that every cent of it is going to fund what you want your money to fund. However, organzations like the ACS, Komen, etc etc take varying percentages of contributions to pay for all of the overhead that running any BUSINESS -- and make no mistake, these are businesses first and foremost -- entails. I wonder how many people would donate $100 (or spend $100 on Pink Products) if they were informed that only $10 of it went to either research or education and the rest went into some corporate pocket? Not many, I bet.
It is true that $10 is better than $0. But personally (and this would apply whether or not I could easily afford the hypothetical $100 spent) I would rather know that every one of my hard-earned highly-taxed dollars are going to whatever I am interested in supporting.
As far as finding a "cure", well, I am very cynical about that. Cancer is a far more complex disease than, say, polio (and think for a moment about how it took to come up with a vaccine for that); before a "cure" (or effective preventive) can be found, the causes -- plural very intentional -- must first be found and we are a long way from even that. I think the best we can hope for in the lifetimes of our daughters or granddaughters is more effective targeted therapies for cancers that are diagnosed. The therapies we now have, such as Herceptin, were a huge step forward but even they are not "the answer" because the statistical response rates are relatively low; IMHO, a response rate below 50% does not deserve to be called a "miracle drug" -- it is surely that for those who respond to it, but not for the majority. This is why my personal preference is for the funding of research, equally into causes (for future cases) and targeted therapies (for those who already have cancer).
"Awareness" is, after all, an after-the-fact strategy. It affects the actual DISEASE (or anyone's odds of ending up with it) not one whit.