Strategies and statistics
The media seem reluctant to probe medical and pharmaceutical stories.
"National strategies" can usually count on a bit of a grilling in the media – at least once they get past an RTÉ fanfare like the one briefly bestowed on "Transport 21" on Morning Ireland.
The National Cancer Strategy gets unusual immunity from scrutiny, courtesy of that big-C-word. The Irish Times can report on it, page one, and tell us no more about its provenance than that it will be "presented to the Minster for Health next month". "Uh, by whom?" is just one of the obvious but unanswered questions.
At best, the cancer strategy will be treated as an invitation to yet another impenetrable row about regional healthcare management, plus a few familiar digs at smokers and (for novelty's sake) people who let their kids use sunbeds, the sickos. Cancer prevention, in this mindset, comes down to getting eejits to correct their lifestyles. But the headlines are about improving delivery for patients.
Still, you might be curious about that statistic that names tobacco as a factor in 30 per cent of developed-world cancer deaths. Doesn't that leave room for a lot of other factors? Or do sunbeds account for the other 70 per cent?
An ounce of prevention
You'd hardly know that cancer has complex but comprehensible causes, and the response to it is contested territory. The cancer societies, institutes and "strategies" reflect a well-funded position – a "consensus", as far as most media are concerned – by which treatment (profitable) is emphasised and prevention (costly, for polluters, and for the plastics, pesticides and food industries, among others) is neglected. Prevention appears mainly where it can be pinned on individuals: thus smokers are encouraged to switch from Big Tobacco's fags to Big Pharma's patches and gums.
When they do appear, media reports on environmental carcinogens often take a tone of "Oh, please, what next?" The Irish Times magazine happily tossed one or two into its latest "Don't panic" cover story.
While we're not panicking, something is causing a lot of cancer. The age-adjusted incidence of cancer in the US is up 85 per cent in the past 50 years. Cancer demonstrably clusters around certain kinds of facilities (including, it seems, "modern" farms) and in certain environments. Much more could be done to remove the causes. You can read lots more at Rachel's Democracy and Health News (rachel.org), but not so much elsewhere. Our papers lead with the good news that "survival rates" are up, and gloss over the terrible suffering that medicalised surviving often involves. Wouldn't you rather avoid cancer in the first place?
Meejit grew up in New Jersey, near an area called "Cancer Alley" thanks to its chemical and, yes, pharmaceutical plants. The latter is only ironic if you still believe drug companies are in the business of good health.
Our sickening media
Earlier this month Village carried an interview with Harvard medical professor John Abramson, who described how drug companies are corrupting science and making America sick. The overdosing of the US is a key factor in the resilience of the Celtic Tiger, as Ireland pumps out the pills; but it would be naïve to think the trend won't bring long-term harm here as well.
One reason for Americans' addiction is legal prescription-drug ads in mainstream media. Daytime TV and radio in the US offer a (mostly, but not exclusively, geriatric) pharmacopia. It doesn't happen here. Or does it? Who do you suppose sponsors, for example, that "awareness campaign" about COPD (chronic bronchitis) on the radio, which prompts self-diagnosis with a symptom checklist, then urges sufferers to visit their doctors, where help is at hand? Did you hear Boehringer Ingelheim (maker of the new Spiriva Handihaler) and Pfizer (Tikosyn capsules)? It's so nice when they work together.
Since most doctors are similarly sponsored, don't expect to hear complaints and exposés about such cynicism and stealth. Sadly, it takes Hollywood and John le Carré, in the form of The Constant Gardener, to give us an even faintly realistic view of the pharmaceutical industry, one you won't find in most of our news media.