Should we continue to waste money researching cancer?????

Cancer kills people... but then it is jus part of the system of nature... this is why predators exist... to keep the population of other animals lower than them steady... otherwise there wud be over population.... yet.. we keep tryin to research for sumthin tht is uncurable... when we already have people sufferin who are perfectly healthy... why use a lot of money to give a person an extra month... an extra year to live... when they are inevitably goin to die... i know it sounds mean.. but philsophically... would it not be better to spend all that money on starvin people... with tht money you could help a lot of people who actually are not gonna die... unless they starve..

Should we continue to waste money researching cancer?????
I understand your question and do not think you are a mean person, but trying to figure things out. The same question, however could be applied to starvation and population control. Nature works in an apparent perfect circle where the suffering of one creates life for another. Humans came along, began to question, and put a monkey wrench in the process. I equate cancer with what we as humans are to the planet, our source of sustenance. Humanity, what does it mean? As one who has suffered tremendously, I appreciate it's value and hate it at the same time. Human consciousness and judgment over the things that happen seem to be more of the problem than the the things themselves. I have witnessed the love and sorrow of animals, but they do not question it. I do not want to die from cancer and hope if I get it someone will help me. All creatures are attached to life and resist death. We as humans have evolved such a strong ability to fight it that we will eventually cause our own extinction with our desire to survive, or not, so far it remains to be seen what will be the result of our domination and destruction of nature.





PS - Wake up people this is philosophy, don't come here if you are gonna take it personal. Philosophy is trying to understand things, not making judgments or conclusions, but asking questions.
Reply:Looking back at this, I do think perhaps the word waste is what set people off. I understood what you meant but can understand why some took offense. Should have used spend instead to get more philosophical and less emotional answers. Report Abuse

Reply:No because if we can find a way to cure these people they arent gonna die, its not inevitable if we find a cure. So, no we should not stop our research on cancer.
Reply:From the moment you are born you are eventually going to die. It is said that the knowledge of our own mortality is one of the attributes unique to our species. Seeking a way to postpone that inevitable conclusion lies at the core of the human experience. You might as well say why bother taking antibiotics for the flu since you are inevitably going to die anyway.





Cancer is not incurable and survivability rates are improving. There are many forms of cancer that are currently completely curable. There are other forms of cancer that are totally preventable, for example HPV causes cervical cancer and there is now have a vaccine against HPV.





There have been some exciting developments in cancer research lately that show promise for a functional vaccine against a wide variety of cancers within your lifetime. Here is a link to an article I read today on the subject: http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-06/rd...





As for your argument about natural death, you might say the same thing about many diseases that were once considered fatal that have become very uncommon (if not completely eradicated) because of research that gave us a vaccine. Among these are polio, tuberculosis, and the black plague to name a few.





As for providing "a few extra years", were it not for chemo I would have had 10 less years with my mom. I think those "extra" years were definitely worth the research.
Reply:My mom had cancer and I'm fumed. I was 3. Why do you want YOUNG children losing thier parent?!?! It is life or death, money is nothing. JERK!
Reply:Okay, muck like communism, your theory makes sense on paper. But one extra year with someone you love is irreplacable, and I hope that you never have to learn that for yourself.
Reply:Wow, I'm guessing that no one close to you has ever suffered from cancer if you really believe this. I think cancer research is imperative. I hope it never affects anyone you love.
Reply:Whoa....you're trying to step on a lot of toes with that thought...First, you need to understand that cancer is not a natural predator or the product or creation of nature. It's man's problem and it's up to us to fight it and cure it. Secondly, you neglect to see all those that have already been cured which I must add that it takes the human mind and spirit to overcome this dis-ease. All the research that has been going on has brought hope and medicine and ways to prevent cancer from happening. It can even be destroyed in it's early stages because of the succes of ongoing research.





I do agree with you that money is better spent on people that have a better chance of living but the truth is how does one know that someone will overcome cancer or not. What if you neglected someone and they had the chance to live and be well but you turned them down for help? That's why people spend money on people with cancer and that hope is the very thing that creates the cure for many. Even though the money is lost in the death of a cancer patient the history of that patient will help find a better cure so there really is no loss in investment.





By the way if you're still reading this, overpopulation is a self stabilizing circumstance. Too much of anything in one place will create lack of resources which in turn kills off the population. The strong will survive and with less numbers to feed it will stabilize.
Reply:You SOB of course we need to keep on researching for the cure. Last year alone 7.6 MILLION people dies of cancer. If we do find a cure it will save people and depressed hearts
Reply:Actually cancer research is a good thing. We should spend money on it, especially when they are even closer to curing it.
Reply:yes!


my father has cancer and they gave him 6 months to live. he has 5 children and 7 grand-kids. were gonna miss him so much.


if research will save just one persons life with a lovely family, it worth it.
Reply:It's all about job security. I cannot remember his name but there is a former NASA chemist that has what he calls a cure but the food and drug administration will not pass the use of the cure. Last I heard he was in Europe working with cancer patients. The fact is that there is too much money in dying. Would we send thousands of people to their death for the all mighty dollar? You bet your buns.
Reply:I am proof that cancer research pays off. When I was 22 years old I was diagnose with cervical cancer. At the time there was little known about the disease. However they knew that if caught early, it had a very high cure rate. Today there is a vaccine being tested against HPV, the cause of cervical cancer. More money and effort should go into cancer research.
Reply:Cancer is to me an awful plague....


fact: it is big business


(do the treatments really insure extra time?)


yet.....mankind hopes for a cure.


that you cannot change.
Reply:Did you know that many of the people who die from cancer are poor working class living from paycheck to paycheck? People are starving but if you do a little research you will find that less than 10 percent of the population owns 90 percent of the resources. A new pair of a celebrity's shoes could probably feed a family for a year.
Reply:First, you are going to learn how to spell and learn proper grammar and punctuation. Then, and only then, will you be able to waste our time spewing nonsense about cancer research.


Have you sat by your Grandmother's bedside for 10 YEARS while she wasted away from a cancer that is NOW curable? Then, and only then (and when you realize the word is going, not goin - lots of words end in "ing", you know) are you capable of comment.


What about the children? Should they be condemned to a life of constant pain followed by inevitable death - or should they be CURED by a new treatment that was just discovered by the men and women who spend years researching cures. Maybe one of these kids will be the one who, in 15-20 years, comes up with the cure to world hunger... Maybe one of these kids will be yours? Have you lost your grandparents or parents, yet? Ever think of the kids? Or are you jus goin to blah blah bla bout nothin?
Reply:There are many promising new medicines and technologies that may be able to successfully eliminate cancer on the horizon. Therefor it is not a pointless endeavor. Not only are we close to finding and utilizing a cure, but the reasearch that you claim to have been pointless was very improtant in developing medicine in general. So, in addition to your question being rather cold hearted it was based on mis-information...or perhaps no information at all.
Reply:If you had to watch someone that you loved die from cancer I think that you would understand why it is important to continue working for a cure. What would have happened if brilliant people decided not to spend the time to find a cure for polio? There are many illnesses today that are minor but were once deadly until a cure was found. So I think that you should keep that in perspective.
Reply:I think that they should continue to spend money on a cure for Cancer. Although my opinion is based on the fact that I have lost two family members due to Cancer.
Reply:hows this I hope you get cancer and you come back and ask this question again. for those of us who lost love ones to cancer its not a waste of money
Reply:I can already see that a lot of people are getting angry about this question...and I can see why. This is one of those things that is hard to understand unless it hits close to home. I just recently found out my aunt has cancer and only has about a year to live. She didn't smoke but got sick from the toxins at her job. So would my family financially support any of her medical needs? Yes, of course. She has grandchildren that she wants to spend as much time with as possible even if she knows she only has so long to live.





You know, there is money that taxpayers pay to help the needy. Welfare, social security, disability....Where do you think that comes from? People work and it benefits other people. You made a comment about "the system of nature". In what category are starving people in? Would you also say that's part of population control?
Reply:Obviously you've never had a friend or family member die of cancer...


SCREW YOU!
Reply:By your line of reasoning, it would make more sense to spend all that money on weapons and just kill everyone, since we're al going to die anyway.
Reply:Let me analyze your argument:


Premises:


1. People on cancer will die if we don't cure them


2. Starving people are going to die if we don't feed them





Conclusion:


Starving people are more worthwhile to save then people who are sick with cancer. So we should not research cancer cure.





I am sorry but this makes no sense. I don't exactly see how are starving people more worthy of being saved the people who are sick with cancer.
Reply:You are a heartless moron and you will have that mentality until cancer stikes someone you love. I lost my grandfather to cancer 27 years ago and I can only wish there was the technology available back then to give him a few more years so that maybe I could have remembered him. I dont remember him, I was young, but my entire family has told me I was the light in his life. And I can never get that back and from what my family has told me, he was the only grandfather that had the time and the heart to care about his grandchildren. So, because of cancer, I missed out on what it was like to have a good old fashion grandparent.
Reply:Would you still say that if you yourself had cancer?
Reply:If there were more people like you then we would not we would not have half the medical advances we have today. I remember reading similar reasoning after umbrellas were introduce in England. Some people felt that if G-D did not want you to get wet then he would not make it rain when you are outside.


I will grant you that just because we can do something does not necessarily mean we should. You do know what DNR means?
Reply:Hope you never get cancer ...


if you look at it this way why bother eating if your only going to die
Reply:You must have voted for Bush the second time too. We know his party wants to spend our way into the stone age and not give a damn for anybodies well being, thats the meaning of conservitive isn't it?
Reply:you must not know anyone suffering from this terrible disease
Reply:You are underinformed. Nature also dictates that we protect ourselves when calamity strikes. That's precisely what we are trying to do. That's precisely why we are trying to find a cure for cancer. What makes you think cancer can't be cured if it is detected while there's still time? Starvation also kills people. Why prefer the starving to the cancer afflicted? Please do not get trapped within the nexus of malignant and wrong "philosophy".
Reply:Cancer is not necessarily uncurable. Some cancers are preventable, but some are not. Just as no one decides to starve to death, no one decides to get colon cancer. Yes, its true that people in other coutries (some even in our OWN country) need help to keep them from starving, or dying for easily cured diseases, but why take money away from cancer research? Why not cut down on government waste spending. The government is spending millions of dollars on TRASH. Nothing. Why not cut funding for silly, little things, instead of cancer research.





I wonder if you have lost someone to cancer? Maybe because I have lost several members of my family to cancer, and have had many more fight through it, that I feel that we shouldn't cut funding towards finding a "cure". I'm biased, I'll admit that, but so are thousand (maybe millions) of other people. What about children with cancer? A cure wouldn't give them a month, or a year, it would give them a LIFE. 10 years of living isn't exactly a life, now is it?





And if you want to get down to the nitty gritty, why have cures for polio, chicken pox, and all the other now easily cured diseases? Without research for those (that were just a part of the system of nature) a lot of us wouldn't be alive. They were probably once thought of uncurable, but they are easily curable now. Maybe we only have to wait a few more years until the cure of cancer is found. Would it be a waste then?





"It is important to mention that modern cancer treatments are also improving cure rates. Many kinds of cancer that were almost always incurable fifty years ago are now routinely cured by modern day therapies."





(Just so you know, I'm not trying to mean, either. And I completely understand where you are coming from. People starving around the world is absolutely TERRIBLE, but with a little snip in some government spending could easily make a dent in that, but they apprently just don't care. That is why, we, as human beings have to our part to help that.)