While reading this article - it hit me - lung cancer is more mistakenly and negatively categorized than I originally had thought. It made me re-think about the articles I come across from time to time, you know, those claiming that "90% of lung cancer patients are smokers". After reading the article by Jamie, I realize that most lung cancer is bunched in to only ever smokers. However, this is not a good representation of lung cancer.
When you think about quitting smoking, what, if any, is the appriopriate or acceptable time frame for quitting? By 'appriopriate' or 'acceptable' I mean that smoking would not define you at the time of diagnosis. Some lung cancer articles are too general, and they do not separate the one day, one week, one year quitter from the 5, 10, 15, 20 years plus quitter. Does it matter? I think so. For a statistic that contributes most heavy to the stigma, I think there should be a little more clarification and care when talking about this topic.
Why does it matter? Because some organizations say that 80-90% of lung cancer is solely due to smoking tobacco, and other organizations say that 60% of those diagnosed with lung cancer either never smoked or were former smokers (5,10 plus years). To me, something does not add up. It leads me to believe that lung cancer statistics are not based on individualized patients and treatments. This is a huge problem, because my diagnosis and treatment are specialized to my specific tumor, type of lung cancer, and stage.
I was a 24 year old smoker at the time I was diagnosed, but I should not be categorized with the 30,40,50 year smoker. What would correct this dilemma? Simple, funding. Everything results back to funding. There is not much to be expected or done about a cause without funding. The only thing I can hold on to is hope.
I hope for a better future.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Let me know that you have been here, please leave a comment.