Do cancer charities get too much money?

Ciara471

Ok, I've just been wondering about this lately with movember going on and everything. I know that most people have lost someone to cancer and been affected by it in some way. I also know that cancer research is really important and I think the amount of money raised by movember and other such things is really impressive. However, I sometimes think that cancer has the monopoly on charities at the moment. Are they getting too much money that the don't know what to do with it? Are other charities suffering because most people give their money to cancer? I've been trying to look up stats and things about this online but I can't find anything. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

bluto63

It's those damn African kids. They get everything, it's just not fair.

Yeah, I have an opinion. No.

Ciara471

Sacramento, any reason for your opinion?

Biggins

A few years ago I came in contact with a number of organisations while doing social work.
They showed me figures at the time that stated Ireland has the highest rate of cancer per population in Europe.

On a personal note, I know of three people presently (including a brother in law at advanced stage) who is suffering from cancer.

So at present I would have to be biased and say that cancer charities (like other non-cancer related) need every cent they get.
If they deserve more than others - thats debatable. For the present (given personal reasons) I can only suppose "No" (to your question) given the people I know that are dying from this curse of a thing.

Saila

there are a hundred million other charities that get funding, I counted them.......that was a long day , you just know about cancer because its the household name of for illness'

cursai

Jaysus donte be saying that's I just spent the last month with a mongrel on my lip.

Riskymove

Biggins wrote: »

ASo at present I would have to be biased and say that cancer charities (like other non-cancer related) need every cent they get.
If they deserve more than others - thats debatable. For the present I can only suppose "yes" given the people I know that are dying from this curse of a thing.

some thoughts

without a doubt the fact that it is so common and few families will be untouched is the key

obviously then other rarer things are not getting the funding needed

there is also the fact that some (I underline some) cancers are down to (or at least significantly aided by) lifestyle choices

would people react to lung cancer charity the same as breast cancer for example?

there is also, wothout doubt almost a celebrity nature to cancer awareness as a trendy thing to do...but if it means more money for research should that matter?

Mental Mickey

Ciara471 wrote: »

Ok, I've just been wondering about this lately with movember going on and everything. I know that most people have lost someone to cancer and been affected by it in some way. I also know that cancer research is really important and I think the amount of money raised by movember and other such things is really impressive. However, I sometimes think that cancer has the monopoly on charities at the moment. Are they getting too much money that the don't know what to do with it? Are other charities suffering because most people give their money to cancer? I've been trying to look up stats and things about this online but I can't find anything. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Yeah, you have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on your hands. And cancer charities get the majority of money, because, lets face it, everyone is affected by it in some way or another.

Saila

Riskymove wrote: »

some thoughts

without a doubt the fact that it is so common and few families will be untouched is the key

obviously then other rarer things are not getting the funding needed

there is also the fact that some (I underline some) cancers are down to (or at least significantly aided by) lifestyle choices

would people react to lung cancer charity the same as breast cancer for example?

there is also, wothout doubt almost a celebrity nature to cancer awareness as a trendy thing to do...but if it means more money for research should that matter?

ever since Lance Armstrong got cancer and won the tour de france its become allot more well known. then people like kylie minogue and gail porter, some of these people have power and influence

CreepingDeath

Ciara471 wrote: »

Do cancer charities get too much money?

No.
Although more effort should be spent in preventing trollitis.

Biggins

Follow-up to previous comment (which was edited for clarity), the figures I got at the time, showed that Ireland had the highest rate in Europe for cancer - and that in Ireland, Louth was the highest county by far.

The though occurred to me at the time about the people of Louth living just across from Selafield ("Windscale" before they did the PR job and renamed it - due to a great number of processing leaks).
...Anyway, its food for thought and for another thread.

Mental Mickey

CreepingDeath wrote: »

No.
Although more effort should be spent in preventing trollitis.

Ouch.

Acacia

Well, 1 in 3 people will get some form of it at some stage. That's a scary statistic, so yeah, they deserve every bit they get. They would be the main charities I'd donate to, those and suicide prevention charities, cause that's also a massive problem in this country.

starbelgrade

Charities that help people with cancer - be it through the likes of screening, patient care etc etc shouldn't really have to exist at all. The responsibilty for provision of these services should be provided by the state & paid for by the people.

No-one should have to rely on what are essentially hand-outs for services like these & it's a blatant failure of society that they do still exist.

smash

Take a look at some of the cancer wards in this country, especially the children's cancer ward in Crumlin hospital and then tell me they get too much money. It's a disgrace, and charity starts at home, better of donating to an Irish cancer charity (or any Irish charity) than to send money abroad.

starbelgrade

smash wrote: »

Take a look at some of the cancer wards in this country, especially the children's cancer ward in Crumlin hospital and then tell me they get too much money. It's a disgrace, and charity starts at home, better of donating to an Irish cancer charity (or any Irish charity) than to send money abroad.

Why should a hospital have to rely on funding from charitable donations at all?

This should be state funded, not reliant on the crumbs from our tables.

Ciara471

I hope it didn't sound like i don't think they deserve it. I know it's a huge problem in this country. (Didn't realise Ireland had the most cancer in Europe though...interesting).

If there was just one massive charity in Ireland that collected all the money and then gave it to where it was needed I think that cancer would have less and things like suicide prevention charities for example would get more.

(Also I'm not trolling, if I was trolling I'd be saying that cancer shouldn't get any money or something equally stupid. I'm just looking for opinions on an interesting conversation I had the other day)

I was doing a charity walk for a diabetes charity last year and I noticed a few people who wouldn't give money said things like 'Diabetes is a rich persons disease, if it was for cancer I'd give loads of money'. I think it is just because everyone has been affected by it.

If you could only give €10 to charity this year would you give it to cancer? How about if someone close to you committed suicide, would this change your mind and convince you to give it to suicide prevention charities? Is it entirely based on what you've been affected by or do you think about the bigger picture such as what charity need it the most?

starbelgrade

Ciara471 wrote: »

I was doing a charity walk for a diabetes charity last year and I noticed a few people who wouldn't give money said things like 'Diabetes is a rich persons disease,

Fucking idiots. Diabetes can affect anyone, but is more common among lower earners due to poor nutrition.

Ciara471

starbelgrade wrote: »

Fucking idiots. Diabetes can affect anyone, but is more common among lower earners due to poor nutrition.

I know. It was quite shocking to hear the way some people spoke about it. They said that people with too much money and eat junk food all the time get diabetes and it's their own fault. I was also very surprised that it wasn't just one person to say this to me.

smash

starbelgrade wrote: »

Why should a hospital have to rely on funding from charitable donations at all?

This should be state funded, not reliant on the crumbs from our tables.

The fact is that it's not though. Crumlin got millions to develop the hospital a few years ago and while there are approx 10 beds in the cancer ward and the around the same in the Cystic Fibrosis ward, the millions went on new consultancy offices. These wards need the funding because the government don't give a fcuk!

komodosp

"Cancer" covers a broad range of related illnesses, so it's not surprising that it gets a lot of coverage, or that so many people know people affected by cancer. I do think that Breast Cancer gets a disproportionate amount of attention, compared to, say, leukemia... It (breast) seems to be the "sexiest" cancer (in the Tony Blair Dodgy Dossier definition of the word "sex")

So I don't think it gets too much money.

the millions went on new consultancy offices

This isn't the first time I heard this. The sad truth is they waste money to use up the budget, so that it won't be reduced the following year. To an extent I wouldn't blame them - it's the system's fault in a way that causes them to be punished for not spending money.

Fbjm

Isn't cancer the term for a disease where they don't know what's wrong with you? Sort of any enigmatic problem that has you serious in hospital. So, I'd have to say if you split it up into individual 'cancers', they probably get relatively little money in comparison to other charities.

smash

Fbjm wrote: »

Isn't cancer the term for a disease where they don't know what's wrong with you?

Facepalm of the highest order. It's unregulated and irregular cell growth.

komodosp wrote: »

This isn't the first time I heard this. The sad truth is they waste money to use up the budget, so that it won't be reduced the following year.

the money could have been "wasted" on a new ward, or equipment instead.

komodosp wrote: »

To an extent I wouldn't blame them.

Tell that to the children and their families sitting in the 2 wards I mentioned. The new offices are a multi-storey block right beside them.

LeeHoffmann

I was doing a charity walk for a diabetes charity last year and I noticed a few people who wouldn't give money said things like 'Diabetes is a rich persons disease, if it was for cancer I'd give loads of money'. I think it is just because everyone has been affected by it.

Four of my family have had cancer and all died from it. I have never known a single person to survive cancer. They've all died. I'm considering looking into genetic testing for cancer - a particular form is prevalent in my family, often striking young, fit, non-smoking healthy eaters. As others have said, it affects everyone - I doubt there's a person in Ireland who won't be seriously affected by cancer in their life. Three of my family have/had diabetes and I'm at a higher risk of getting it as my Dad had it. I would never really have thought about donating money to it because the people I 've known who have diabetes just get on with it - they live for years with it, and it doesn't impact on their quality of life in anything like the same way cancer does

pajunior

Personally I would rather give the money to a charity doing decent work in the third world.

The difference between a cancer patient who is middle aged and has lived in an affluent country does not compare to a four year old about to die of starvation or a 12 year old sold as a sex slave or any other countless tragedies that happen in this world.

But that's just my personal opinion.

ejmaztec

Fbjm wrote: »

Isn't cancer the term for a disease where they don't know what's wrong with you? Sort of any enigmatic problem that has you serious in hospital. So, I'd have to say if you split it up into individual 'cancers', they probably get relatively little money in comparison to other charities.

GPs seem to use the word "virus" quite a lot in those circumstances.

LeeHoffmann

Diabetes is a rich persons disease,

Diabetes can affect anyone, but is more common among lower earners due to poor nutrition.

There are two types of diabetes. Type 1 diabetes (yes, that's what it's called) is an auto-immune disease - your diet doesn't affect it. Type 2 is the type that's on the rise. It's caused by an unhealthy lifestyle -poor diet, lack of exercise. Type 1 is usually more severe and will definitely require insulin injections; type 2 can often be treated with tablets (at least for a while)

The difference between a cancer patient who is middle aged and has lived in an affluent country does not compare to a four year old about to die of starvation or a 12 year old sold as a sex slave or any other countless tragedies that happen in this world.

It's not a competition. I understand what you're saying and of course agree that famine/trafficking are vile crimes and awful tragedies. However, you might see things differently if you watch your parent, partner, brother, sister or child slowly starve to death, going blind in the process and writhing in agony at the end of a battle with cancer. I've been there. It's not hyperbole.

Azureus

Saila wrote: »

ever since Lance Armstrong got cancer and won the tour de france its become allot more well known. then people like kylie minogue and gail porter, some of these people have power and influence

I dont think many people support cancer charities because of celebrity influence. I think people support it because almost everybody has been touched in one way or another by the disease, whether its friends family or themselves suffering/suffered or dead because of it.
Its the one charity I support every time I see a collector, and I make an effort to contribute to fundraisers etc run by the irish cancer society. Fact is, we cant help everybody so I choose to support a cause thats very close to my heart. I imagine the majority of people who contricute are the same. And have they found a cure for cancer? No. So our money is still necesary. When a cure is found and the disease stops tearing familys apart, then Ill focus on African blindness or athsma or something. Til then, I know where my money is going.

Mental Mickey

Fbjm wrote: »

Isn't cancer the term for a disease where they don't know what's wrong with you? Sort of any enigmatic problem that has you serious in hospital. So, I'd have to say if you split it up into individual 'cancers', they probably get relatively little money in comparison to other charities.

Jesus H Christ. Either you're extremely silly, or you've been living under a rock your whole life?? Close the door on your way out.

Biggins

Just a quick detail from a report "TOP 10 causes of death in Ireland": http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/6016/captureshj.jpg

Note how many of them is cancer alone! (5 out of ten) Shocking!

Report here as a downloadable PDF: http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ireland's%20top%20diseases&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.who.int%2Fwhosis%2Fmort%2Fprofiles%2Fmort_euro_irl_ireland.pdf&ei=RIrPTv3LIsKzhAf7ppC_DQ&usg=AFQjCNEeroLqCvhHj-VmhVYwGZKjMXkM2w

Miguel_Sanchez

Definitely not.

eth0

No they need more money

but thats not to say that the cancer research and charity scene is having problems with being too fragmented and that they could do with being a bit more organised to try and get rid of this ould bastard of a disease for once and for all

Biggins

eth0 wrote: »

No they need more money

but thats not to say that the cancer research and charity scene is having problems with being too fragmented and that they could do with being a bit more organised to try and get rid of this ould bastard of a disease for once and for all

All true. Amen.

starbelgrade

smash wrote: »

The fact is that it's not though. Crumlin got millions to develop the hospital a few years ago and while there are approx 10 beds in the cancer ward and the around the same in the Cystic Fibrosis ward, the millions went on new consultancy offices. These wards need the funding because the government don't give a fcuk!

The problem is though that the more we fund hospitals through charities, the less responsibility we make the government - and ourselves - take for them.

If donations stopped tomorrow & there were deaths caused because of lack of funding, you would see a huge public outcry & a quick turnaround of government policy.

It is a sad state of affairs when you realise that only something like that could change the state of play as it stands.

smash

starbelgrade wrote: »

If donations stopped tomorrow & there were deaths caused because of lack of funding, you would see a huge public outcry & a quick turnaround of government policy.

This already happens, you don't see any outcry.

c_man

Do cancer charities get too much money?

Definitely yes. I hear Uganda are had to buy a few less fighter-bombers than planned owing to Movember sweeping up this month in ireland.

iguana

I'm quite curious as to where the hell the money goes with a lot of Cancer charities. Obviously a charity like MacMillan nurses pays for nurses who provide additional support for sufferers but what about a group like Cancer Research? Where does that money go exactly? Most cancer research is conducted by multi-billion earning pharmaceutical companies, who stand to make MASSIVE profits on any new treatment or cure. I know some cancer research charities pay for medical/science students to specialise in cancer related medicine which to be quite honest does not seem like something which should be being funded by a charity. I think people don't honestly stop to think what is actually happening to the money given to medical charities in the same way that people have become wary of developing world/ emergency charities.

Saila wrote:

then people like kylie minogue and gail porter, some of these people have power and influence

Gail Porter has alopecia not cancer.

smash

iguana wrote: »

I'm quite curious as to where the hell the money goes with a lot of Cancer charities.

The McDonadls children's cancer charity went towards building new family accommodation initially... Ronald McDonald house.

AnonoBoy

Watch your young cousin die of cancer and see her parents absolutely fall apart with grief because there's nothing they can do.

Then come back and tell me cancer research gets too much money.

Crazy Horse 6

Ciara471 wrote: »

Ok, I've just been wondering about this lately with movember going on and everything. I know that most people have lost someone to cancer and been affected by it in some way. I also know that cancer research is really important and I think the amount of money raised by movember and other such things is really impressive. However, I sometimes think that cancer has the monopoly on charities at the moment. Are they getting too much money that the don't know what to do with it? Are other charities suffering because most people give their money to cancer? I've been trying to look up stats and things about this online but I can't find anything. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

We should give it towards the banks. They will make much better use of it.

Mental Mickey

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Watch your young cousin die of cancer and see her parents absolutely fall apart with grief because there's nothing they can do.

Then come back and tell me cancer gets too much money.

Anyone for that matter. Cancer doesn't give a s**t what age you are. I watched my Mam die of cancer earlier this year. Not nice.

saa

I don't have anyone in my life who is suffering with cancer today but this will most likely change and there is a good chance it might be me.

So I do care about this issue you could say with any charity that they don't get enough,
I must say though I'm not that educated as to what cancer charities do I know there is an element or research and support.

I know if someone got cancer that their insurance or the HSE would pay for their treatment lets hope, I'd be interested to find out how the money from these charities comes into a persons life with cancer.

I know there have been massive leaps concerning the knowledge of and treatment of cancer which I'm sure charaties have had a lot of do with, I'm not sure from now on which cancer charity is in most need of funding and it can't be all of them, which cancer charity do I give to?

I feel like we should prioritise cancer charaties because of the possible progress but also I hear the argument why do we send money abroad, well one day I feel like we might even be in need for large scale donations from abroad, and not another bail out

Iwannahurl

I just wonder what people expect when they donate to cancer charities, or what the general public expects from cancer charities?

What has been the return from charitable donations over, say, the last 50 years?

LeeHoffmann

Gail Porter has alopecia not cancer.

:pac:

donating to the Hospice is a good idea. They do amazing work - and you know where your money's going

goose2005

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Watch your young cousin die of cancer and see her parents absolutely fall apart with grief because there's nothing they can do.

Then come back and tell me cancer research gets too much money.

They mean relative to other worthy causes.

From what I've heard, AIDS, malaria and yellow fever get a disproportionate amount of funding compared to water-borne diseases.

John Doe1

There be more funding to the "getting stuck in clothes horse" charities

AnonoBoy

goose2005 wrote: »

They mean relative to other worthy causes.

I know what they mean. I still stand by what I said.

Cancer affects 1 in 4 people in Ireland.

CrazyRabbit

Scientest are currently testing a new treatment for cancer which might 'cure' almost all forms of tumorous cancers very easily. In tests on 100 mice, all were cured.

It involves using nanotechnology 'buckyballs' or 'rods' which are coated with gold particles and proteins which readily attach themselves to most tumors. Once exposed to high intensity infra-red radiation, the gold particles absord it and heat up, killing the cancer cells. Surrounding cells are not damaged.

Details here (slightly different approach, but same principles):
http://tinyurl.com/7ex8bw8

This treatment probably never would have come about without charitable donations for cancer research.

iguana

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Cancer affects 1 in 4 people in Ireland.

That's a statistic that while possibly technically accurate doesn't actually mean what it is emotively designed to mean. An awful lot of old age deaths are from cancer. My great-grandmother died of uterine cancer but by the time she got it she was in her 70s. Due to her age it spread so slowly treatment was not recommended and she had it for 15 years, almost entirely symptomless until her last 3 months in her mid-late 80s.

AnonoBoy

iguana wrote: »

That's a statistic that while possibly technically accurate doesn't actually mean what it is emotively designed to mean. An awful lot of old age deaths are from cancer. My great-grandmother died of uterine cancer but by the time she got it she was in her 70s. Due to her age it spread so slowly treatment was not recommended and she had it for 15 years, almost entirely symptomless until her last 3 months in her mid-late 80s.

True. But I know several people in their 20's that also died.

There's not many life threatening diseases that 25% of the population may well get.