There was a nice little conundrum in the news here yesterday.
They were bragging about how they are to introduce a new “cancer care strategy” which is to cost us a mere two billion [which is mere chicken feed compared to the hundreds of billions we owe already].
Now I have no problem with this, apart from knowing damn well that ASH and Luke Clancy are at this moment drafting reasons why they should have a massive share of that two billion.
They claim that the number of cancer cases will double over the next twenty years and then make the strange statement – “While it puts this largely down to an ageing population, the plan will also stress that as much as 40 per cent of cancer cases can be avoided. “
Okay, so they reckon that all those evil things like food alcohol and tobacco are causing cancer, so if we avoid them we will not get cancer but will live to old age ….. whereupon we are most likely to get cancer. It seems to me like Hobson’s Choice?
Doubtless they are going to ramp up their Nanny campaigns and force us to be “healthy” and live long into a miserable old age whereupon we will probably develop cancer anyway, so why not just spend those billions on just making life [and death] a little more comfortable?
“At the same time, there are now over 150,000 cancer survivors in Ireland and a greater focus on the increasing numbers living with and beyond cancer is required,” the strategy states.
Now fair play to those people who survived – I am genuinely happy for them – but there is an inherent implication here that “life beyond cancer” is somehow eternal, and that if you are cured of cancer you won’t get it again despite living to a grand old age?
In particular, it says an inherited predisposition to cancer is being increasingly identified through genetic testing.
Throughout the years I [and a lot of others] have held this theory. It makes sense. It is logical. People are a bit like cars – as they get older bits wear out and have to be replaced, but sooner or later they will develop a drop of rust which is the car equivalent to cancer. Once the rust starts, it’s a bugger to stop and when it gets really bad, the best solution is to bid the car a fond farewell and consign it to the scrapheap. Some makes of car are better than others at avoiding this problem which I suppose is the car equivalent to genetics. I used to have a Datsun Cherry many years ago, so I know all about how a particular make is prone to a drop of corrosion.
Another factor they seem to be overlooking is the way cancer rates are increasing so much while at the same time smoking rates are falling? As one goes down, the other goes up? Could there possibly be a connection?
Now there is a bit of research to spend the two billion on?