creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Susan Estrich
10 May 2013
Mother Love

My daughter was born on Mother's Day, 23 years ago. It was the happiest day of my life — matched only, … Read More.

8 May 2013
The Drunk Guy in the Parking Lot

The report from the Arlington, Va., Police Department is, on its face, hardly newsworthy: "SEXUAL BATTERY,… Read More.

3 May 2013
Mary Thom, Thank You

Mary Thom, former editor of Ms. magazine and feminist visionary, died last week in a motorcycle accident. I … Read More.

The Politics of Cancer

Comment

The last thing someone diagnosed with a serious cancer wants to hear about is politics. It's bad enough to think that whether or not you will live to see your child graduate from college may depend on your grandmother's genes, or the cigarettes you smoked before you knew better, or work and living decisions you made before you knew the risks involved.

But politics? How well organized your fellow sufferers have managed to be? Whether there are enough folks who get the disease, survive it, feel well enough and possess the skills to raise money and launch a movement?

It shouldn't matter. This should be about science and professionalism, about national standards that can be followed even by more isolated doctors in rural areas. Yes, we all know that when it comes to surgery, it's important to find doctors who have performed more and not fewer, who are up on the latest advances, who practice at hospitals with state-of-the-art equipment. But the least you can expect to know, or find out, is that you should be looking for such a person.

For many years, women, underrepresented in government and business and science and the rest, were also underrepresented in the machinations of determining, when it comes to cancer research, the answer to the essential question of politics: Who gets what, when, where and how? "Men fund what they fear," former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder so famously said. And they didn't fear mastectomy — at least they didn't until voters put the fear of God in them.

Politics worked. One thing all women — conservative and liberal, Democratic and Republican — could agree on is that breast cancer is a scourge that touches all of us, in increasing numbers. We were mad as hell and determined that someone — everyone — do something about it. And we vote. So, too, for AIDS activists. Does anyone doubt that so many of our friends and loved ones would be with us today, living full and productive lives, without politics?

So what happened to ovarian cancer?

A report out this week, which hopefully will receive the attention it deserves (one reason among many that I am writing this), discusses the findings of a study analyzing the treatment and results of 13,000 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 1999 and 2006.

Only 37 percent were given the care recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The network is an alliance of 21 leading cancer centers. The care I'm talking about here is not the "pushing the envelope type." It's not the experimental clinical trials that you only expect to find at major medical centers and that haven't yet been confirmed as safe and effective. No, I'm talking about the basic protocols, the "standard operating procedure," the care that every woman with such a diagnosis has a right to get and should get, the care that might allow her to see her children grow up.

Consider the numbers. Women who receive the care they should get are 30 percent more likely to survive than those who don't. Thirty percent. Among those (sadly the majority) whose cancer is not found until it reaches an advanced stage, 35 percent of the women who received the proper care survived at least five years, as compared with 25 percent who did not.

Your wife? Your sister? You?

These numbers are simply unacceptable.

I pay attention to ovarian cancer because a friend had it in her 30s. Most doctors don't recognize it at first. I pay attention to those stories: How do we get doctors to see that the kind of symptoms so often seen as typically female — the bloating and discomfort and cramping and the like — can be deadly? But the very notion that once diagnosed these women don't even get the standard treatment is nothing short of horrifying.

Do we really need another color of ribbon? Do we need someone to do for ovarian cancer what Michael Milken did for prostate cancer — that is, create a political movement around it? Why isn't it enough to hope that doctors doing their jobs, aided by a new health care act that will encourage electronic health records and allow for easier monitoring and comparisons on a large-scale basis, will solve the problem?

We headed to the barricades for breast cancer. Today, the experts are debating whether too many women are being screened and not too few. In my mind, that's progress.

It's time to do the same for ovarian cancer. Yesterday.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM



Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
Cancer patients are screwed when Obamacare takes full effect anyhow. Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree here.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:43 AM
Re: Chris McCoy;... I agree that she is barking up the wrong tree; but only because of the fact that when government decided in advance of any obvious need, not to govern commerce, or property or press, or religion that is was inevitable that it would be governed by them, or all of them; and they have... They have given away our airwaves for a pittance so that those who own stations can show emmense profits on elections that should be fair- and as a result of the power of money as property, will never be...
Goverment should be the place were reasonable people gather to decide how we will face our future in the light of science and knowledge and as a result of the denial of religion ungoverned, and empowered to teach any sort of trash that passes the test of dogma, there is no reason to government, no ability to weigh any subject upon the facts alone, no knowledge or science that can sway them... They do not avoid disasters but pray them away... They do not combat pandemics before they arrive, but count on God's blessings to ever be upon us...You cannot give a free hand to greed or to superstition and expect to never suffer a slap, and we have had it many times... These groups have governed us into wars, and cannot and will not relieve us of the debt of them... Like it or not; because we have not mastered them, because we have not made them accountable for the problems they have produced, we have them as our masters...
No one thinking to sweep the wreck of the government into the trash of history will find it possible without taking on religion and business with the same broom... These are the lords and bishops of ancient times in collusion with the kings to keep all other people under their heels... To sweep one away requires a broom made for three...
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:29 AM
Let me say up front that I certainly sympathize with the group you are advocating for in this Op-Ed. However, your piece perfectly demonstrates the mind set that has driven the medical system into the hole it is in. Allow me to elucidate.

You advocate for patients with disease "A". Unfortunately, there are a limited medical resources. In the real world this imples that to get what you want you will need to coop the resources from some other group, say disease "B". But those people don't want their level of care to be reduced. After all, they feel that they also have a "right" to the best standard of care.

Now, one of two things will happen. Most likely, the A's and B's will bid up access to the limited resources (after all, this is life or death) and the cost goes up. Individuals with the best resources get the best care. Some suffer.

Another possibility is that we create more resources (e.g., Build more hospitals or train more doctors) to meet the demands of both groups. That also costs more money.

Note that both outcomes drive up costs. Multiply this scenario by the all the human misery and sickness and you get a spiralling cost for medical care.

So the government steps in. This giant brainmass tells us that it will allocate/create resources on a scientific basis. But the brainmass is fed/funded by the taxpayers. The taxpayers (as Ms. Estrich advocates) will use politics to inform the brainmass which disease is the most important. Since the advocates now want everyone else (not just those with disease "A") to pay for treatment that the A's have a "right" too, cost control becomes even less of a factor in the advocates thinking (after all, this is a matter of life or death). The result is that the spriralling cost cycle not only doesn't end, it accelerates. Getting the governmental brainmass involved has only made things worse!

I wish I knew exactly what to do about this. Two things are certain, we live in a world of limited resources and we are all going to die. Government can't solve either of these problems. However, it is likely that by getting so heavily involved in medical care it will only make things more, not less, miserable.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Old Navy
Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:26 AM
I miss the days where this column would explode with 15+ comments and we had heated arguements between Wright, Lipka, and Morgan
Comment: #4
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:14 PM
This column should be retired The Cancer of Politics.

To cure cancer the tumor must be removed from the host.

Obama is the malignant tumor in the body politic.
Comment: #5
Posted by: joseph wright
Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:25 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
May. `13
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 14 May 2013
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 13 May 2013
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 11 May 2013

24 Feb 2012 Taking Care

29 Jul 2009 Lily Burk, 17

2 Mar 2007 Meanie For President