Politics and Disease

Nearly everything that happens has a political dimension. Even cancer.

Tony Snow's announcement that his colon cancer has returned and spread weighs most of us with sadness. President Bush's press secretary, Snow has always been a class guy.

In stating that "we need to pray for him," Bush said the right things. But as a national leader who could promote the science that may someday help people like Snow, he hasn't done the right things.

Less than a year ago, Bush vetoed legislation that would have put serious federal money into stem-cell research — cutting-edge work with the potential to produce treatments for certain cancers and other dreaded diseases. The veto was a cavalier and political gesture. After all, Bush is perfectly content to let fertilization clinics throw out the same embryos he professed to be defending.

Bush restricted federal funds for this promising work to appease a small segment of his "pro-life" base. This stance is politically risky because the American masses are staunchly behind such research. So during the 2004 presidential campaign, the White House sent out the first lady to belittle the science — while making a sleazy jab at its supporters.

Noting that her father died from Alzheimer's, Laura Bush opined, "The implication that cures for Alzheimer's are around the corner is just not right, and it's really not fair to the people who are watching a loved one suffer with this disease."

Of course, the same could have been said about the quest for a polio vaccine in 1935. Researchers were working on one back then, but it was about 20 more years before Jonas Salk invented an effective vaccine. Could you imagine first lady Eleanor Roosevelt getting up and saying, "My husband has polio, and it's really unfair to raise false hopes of an imminent cure?" I don't think so.

The day of Laura Bush's call for medical defeatism, John Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, offered a can-do alternative.

"If we have a chance to make progress and cure diseases," the then-senator from North Carolina said, "if we have new medical breakthroughs that could improve millions of lives, then what's stopping us?" This was three months before Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, received her first diagnosis of breast cancer.

The recent back-to-back announcements of new and troubling cancer prognoses for Edwards and Snow have focused attention on the disease — not only on the treatments, but the management of it. Some cancers are curable, and others can be controlled for many years, letting many patients lead normal lives.

Every family has to develop its own policy for dealing with a serious disease. That's extra important for working people in their 50s who are still at the height of their game. Having a mission can help sick people prolong their lives. This talk about devoting all energy to "fighting the disease" is off the mark when the patient is feeling fairly well.

The Edwards announcement that the cancer had moved to an advanced stage was not a stab for sympathy but a political necessity. It makes clear to voters and backers that the campaign is not subject to sudden cancellation. And it prepares the public emotionally for a possible bad turn in Elizabeth's condition. By establishing now that the decision to carry on was jointly made, Edwards can continue his campaign without being accused of a selfish disregard for his wife.

We hope that the arsenal of modern medicine can help Snow and Edwards greatly extend their lives. And it helps to remember that every available weapon is the result of governments and people putting their money and faith into scientific research that offered no guarantee of success.

To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE