Do cancer charities get too much money?

iguana

AnonoBoy wrote: »

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.

I know it effects and kills lots of younger people, I had a cancer scare and biopsy myself at the start of the summer. I plan on storing the placental blood of any children I have as the stem cells it contains are one of the best defences an individual has against certain types of cancer. But most of the 25% who get cancer are elderly, and the main reason for rising cancer rates is our lengthening lifespan. It's not something that we need to fear will cause shortened lifespan for 1 in 4 people.

eth0

iguana wrote: »

I know it effects and kills lots of younger people, I had a cancer scare and biopsy myself at the start of the summer. I plan on storing the placental blood of any children I have as the stem cells it contains are one of the best defences an individual has against certain types of cancer. But most of the 25% who get cancer are elderly, and the main reason for rising cancer rates is our lengthening lifespan. It's not something that we need to fear will cause shortened lifespan for 1 in 4 people.

Ah sure old people can die, to hell with em. Sure i wont be old for another 50 years and by that time i'll be quite happy to let myself die.

Who cares if they find a cure that can let a perfectly good 70 year old live for another 15 or 20 years. Human life should be capped at 68 years anyway or pension age +3 years and we cant even afford that. I need my money for buying more cans of 'ken' without paying for someone elses pension. Maybe then I can add a Mac Pro to my astounding collection of iProducts from China if your last pension at 68 is a voucher for your local executioner

Executioners! A great way of creating jobs for young people who deserve a chance

mossyc123

starbelgrade wrote: »

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.

+1 on this

It really is a nonsense of a situation that the provision of Health Care is dependent on charity.

All the funding required to run a world class health service is available and has been available for 15 odd years now.

komodosp wrote: »

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")

From what i've heard there is actually too much money from charitable sources being provided for Breast Cancer services at the moment.

All monies raised for Breast Cancer needs, naturally enough, to be spent on Breast Cancer making it a comparitively overfunded area.

I've heard of one major hospital where the Breast Surgical team were overstaffed (Junior Doctors regularly taking half days because there simply wasn't enough work for them to do!) while other surgical teams were working all hours and rushed off their feet... not an ideal situation IMO.

tacofries

my sister had cancer,i think cancer research and patients need as much money as there is goin. however i heard \witnessed a story of a cancer organisation ignorantly wasting money on something irrelevant to cancer just to help a personal desire of someone. since then i wouldnt give money to it. its a pity cause i want to but cant bring myself to do it now.

amacachi

For hospice care and the like there should be no need to donate to charities but it's not funded properly unfortunately.
For research I'd sooner invest in drugs companies. If a cure is found through something funded by a charity will it be made available at cost price? I strongly doubt it.

oldyouth

For a yoke that hits every family at some stage, the sooner we beat this scourge the better. It may take 20 more years to do it, but without funding it may never happen.

amacachi

oldyouth wrote: »

For a yoke that hits every family at some stage, the sooner we beat this scourge the better. It may take 20 more years to do it, but without funding it may never happen.

It's not a scourge, it's ****load of different illnesses. It's damn unlikely a cure for "cancer" is possible.

Somnus

It's the second greatest cause of death so I would have to say no.

Arianna_26

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?

I think that cancer research takes a lot of money to fund and that it needs all the money it gets, I think your statement about them not knowing what to do with all the money they get is very unfair and unfounded. Cancer is one of the most serious illnesses facing society at present and it's very hard to overcome, that's why people are concerned over it and rightly so.

iguana

eth0 wrote: »

Ah sure old people can die, to hell with em. Sure i wont be old for another 50 years and by that time i'll be quite happy to let myself die.

Who cares if they find a cure that can let a perfectly good 70 year old live for another 15 or 20 years. Human life should be capped at 68 years anyway or pension age +3 years and we cant even afford that.

What are you on about? When old people get cancer they tend to live for a very long time with it. It's why doctors rarely treat it. Many cancers advance very, very slowly in the elderly and as such many die of other age related ailments before feeling much negative impact of the cancer. As I said my great-grandmother was diagnosed with cancer 17 years before she felt any ill-effects from it. That's not at all unusual in elderly cancer patients.

The saying that 1 in 4 people get cancer is falsely emotive and deliberately frightening. Because the fact is a charity where the biggest impact of it's research will be to allow 86 year olds live until 92 won't get the kind of money that cancer research charities currently garner. Most people don't really expect to live much beyond their 80s and 90s.

Sure it will be great when cancer is eliminated and happily we may not be very far off a point that many cancers will be gone, but while lengthening what is historically quite a long average lifespan will be great, it's not really the type of thing that most people want to give to charity for.

df1985

cancer charities are one of the few ill always put my hand in my pocket for as it strike you at any time with little you can do about it.

eth0

iguana wrote: »

What are you on about?
When old people get cancer they tend to live for a very long time with it. It's why doctors rarely treat it. Many cancers advance very, very slowly in the elderly and as such many die of other age related ailments before feeling much negative impact of the cancer. As I said my great-grandmother was diagnosed with cancer 17 years before she felt any ill-effects from it. That's not at all unusual in elderly cancer patients.

The saying that 1 in 4 people get cancer is falsely emotive and deliberately frightening. Because the fact is a charity where the biggest impact of it's research will be to allow 86 year olds live until 92 won't get the kind of money that cancer research charities currently garner. Most people don't really expect to live much beyond their 80s and 90s.

Sure it will be great when cancer is eliminated and happily we may not be very far off a point that many cancers will be gone, but while lengthening what is historically quite a long average lifespan will be great, it's not really the type of thing that most people want to give to charity for.

The old people i knew who died from it were finished off fairly fast by the thing. Depending on location it can go unnoticed in young people for years too.

Its developing the cures that costs a lot, when found it will work on young and old people. Most people want to live longer so if there is a chance it will save your arse as well people will be more inclined to donate

sh__93

Compared to other charities i'd say yes, cancer charities get too much.
In the grand scheme of things though i say no, cancer charities don't get enough money!

My nephew suffers from this skin condition. Please watch.. Just doing my bit to spread awareness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf1G_7czSfk

iguana

eth0 wrote: »

Its developing the cures that costs a lot, when found it will work on young and old people. Most people want to live longer so if there is a chance it will save your arse as well people will be more inclined to donate

Most cancer research is done by private companies. It's private enterprise, researched because it will turn a profit. I'm not at all convinced that giving money to a cancer research charity is the best use of that money at all, because they can be a bit wishy washy about where that money goes and what percentage of it goes to research that would not otherwise be conducted. Much of what they do fund, like paying for students to gain academic qualifications, is not something that I'm convinced should be funded that way.

And the other cancer charities which provide support medical care to existing patients is the type of thing that should be covered by our taxes. Cancer patients would probably be significantly better off, if instead of donating to charities people became more politically involved and forced changes to the way the state runs our health service.

krooney

I was personally touched by cancer. an aggressive form of luekemia. So when I see anything from the ICS I put my hand in the pocket for change automatically. But I also give to other charities like PAWS and the Irish wheelchair association.

But I think its just people who have been affected somehow will give to that chairty. Not as many peoplehave systic fibrosis or even know what it is for example.

When u see a collection for Cancer a person might say, "ah my neighbours mother had that" or something.

Cancer charities seem to drive their collections more. I also have osteoporosis but how often do u see a collection for that and I would be as quick to give to them as I would the ICS if they put a bucket in front of me.

Thats my 2 cents anyway

kowloon

A lot of research money gets wasted in duplication of effort as a result of lack of coordination and by people holding onto results until their research gets published. Neither research by academics/students or by big pharma are suited to solving the problem efficiently.

If a 'one size fits all' cure was discovered tomorrow it's pretty much guaranteed it wouldn't be availiable to everyone.

edit: People getting pissy at diabetes charities is pretty common. I've encountered many a gobshite who reckoned 'they deserve it for eating too much sugar'.

metaoblivia

No, I don't think cancer charities get too much money. It's a terrible disease. I have a friend right now - young mother, 26 years old - who was diagnosed with Leukemia a few weeks ago. She's been undergoing chemotherapy daily since the diagnosis and will soon be going to the hospital for in-patient treatment where she'll get 24 hours of chemo for about a month. During that time, she won't be able to see anyone - not her mother, siblings, or her own children - because her immune system will be so compromised. Right now, she's got about a 50% chance of beating it, but she's got a very long and difficult treatment ahead of her. Yes, we've come a long way with cancer treatment. It used to be a death sentence. But there's still a long ways to go, finding alternatives to chemotherapy (which, and I'm not against it because it does save lives, and I'm hoping it works for my friend, but it's basically poison. Hopefully it's killing the cancer, but it's not an easy treatment to endure), finding more successful treatments for cancers that are difficult to spot early on and treat.

I do very much wish that all deserving charities got the money they deserved, but I think more money is going to go to cancer charities because cancer affects so many people, of all ages and backgrounds, and is still very much a deadly disease.

Charity2020

There is a perception that some charities get too much money. Some are excellent at fundraising and are very much in the public eye. Every charity (by definition) is worthy. The cancer charities provide an excellent service. My experience of cancer charities is that they are highly qualified and operate with great sensitivity.

Richard Hillman

Has anyone ever seen the Irish Cancer Societies HQ on Northumberland Road. The place must be worth millions on one of the most expensive roads in the country. They could easily sell up and relocate to a cheaper and larger premises and make a load of money to help the fight against cancer.

Iwannahurl

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Has anyone ever seen the Irish Cancer Societies HQ on Northumberland Road. The place must be worth millions on one of the most expensive roads in the country. They could easily sell up and relocate to a cheaper and larger premises and make a load of money to help the fight against cancer.

It's a nice gaff for sure.

Too late now for them to downsize and free up equity though. Did anyone suggest it during the Celtic Casino years?

CathyMoran

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

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

I am a 5 year 37 year old oesophageal cancer who is also a type 1 diabetic - I was given 8% chance to get to this stage. In those 5 years I have married and given birth to two children. I did not fit the so called profile for oesophageal cancer though I had the symptoms - my then ex now husband encouraged me to get a referal to a gastroenerologist - my then gp said that if I had (bleep) oesophageal cancer I would be dead by now.

I personally support a charity that teaches doctors and the general public about the symptoms of oesophageal cancer (inability to swallow food should be checked). I have also found the main Irish cancer charity to be of use as they were on the other end of the phone when I was scared and had things to help me though treatment.

I will always give money to cancer charities as I have seen the great work they do.

Freddie59

starbelgrade wrote: »

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.

Agree 100%. Were it now for the Solas Centre here in Waterford, there would be a huge gap in support for sufferers, patients, and their families.

After taking several years to build it up, the government now want to rename Fas as Solas:rolleyes:. It has been politely pointed out to them, but the standard Civil Service response was forthcoming, 'the decision has already been made'. Well, unfcuking make it. Who gives a toss what that black hole Fas is renamed.

ebbsy

Cancer organisations should never have to want for anything, my brother in law has terminal liver cancer and anybody Ive had to deal with has been amazing.

This should never be compromised.

Mister Dread

They don't get near enough. They should get a 1000% more although that is impossible so 100%. Really, when you see hte damage cancer does first hand.

LeeHoffmann

most of the 25% who get cancer are elderly, and the main reason for rising cancer rates is our lengthening lifespan. It's not something that we need to fear will cause shortened lifespan for 1 in 4 people.

do you have any links to back this up? I'd be interested to know because that hasn't been my experience. Most of the people I've known who had cancer have been middle-aged. I knew one man who was elderly (70 years old) and one who was young (26). Off the top of my head, I can think of seven people who were middle aged when they found out they had cancer. (We're talking 40-60 here). They all died within a year or two, apart from one man who survived 5-6 years before he succumbed to it. Most of those people were my family.

To the rest of you - of the people you know who've had cancer, were they mostly elderly people or various ages?

CathyMoran

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

do you have any links to back this up? I'd be interested to know because that hasn't been my experience. Most of the people I've known who had cancer have been middle-aged. I knew one man who was elderly (70 years old) and one who was young (26). Off the top of my head, I can think of seven people who were middle aged when they found out they had cancer. (We're talking 40-60 here). They all died within a year or two, apart from one man who survived 5-6 years before he succumbed to it. Most of those people were my family.

To the rest of you - of the people you know who've had cancer, were they mostly elderly people or various ages?

Of the people I know two were children (one is still alive and is over 40), 4 including myself were in their 30's on diagnosis (2 are dead) and the rest were 40 and over. I will admit that one person I knew (my grandmother) got it in their late 90's and died when they were 100 from it. It seems to occur at all ages.

I think that cancer charities are essential - we need to spread awareness of the symptoms so that people get seen at earlier stages where it can be cured.

Lollipops23

I do see the OP's point- As far as I'm concerned 99% of charities are totally deserving, so I would never begrudge a charity receiving money. My only concern would be that other worthwhile causes may not get the attention they deserve due to the fact that cancer charities are the most publicised.

I've also noticed that there's a certain Irish charity for a severe skin disorder that tends to get a huge amount of support and publicity- now the disorder is horrifc and I would pity anyone who was afflicted with it as it affects their entire day to day life, but it's also really really rare....it made me curious as to why it was so high profile.

Mental Mickey

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

do you have any links to back this up? I'd be interested to know because that hasn't been my experience. Most of the people I've known who had cancer have been middle-aged. I knew one man who was elderly (70 years old) and one who was young (26). Off the top of my head, I can think of seven people who were middle aged when they found out they had cancer. (We're talking 40-60 here). They all died within a year or two, apart from one man who survived 5-6 years before he succumbed to it. Most of those people were my family.

To the rest of you - of the people you know who've had cancer, were they mostly elderly people or various ages?[/QUOTE]

My Mother was in her late 60's and a friend's Father was in his late 50s

smash

LeeHoffmann wrote:

To the rest of you - of the people you know who've had cancer, were they mostly elderly people or various ages?

Does it really matter what age they were? Honestly?

Demonique

smash wrote: »

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

It isn't a children's cancer charity, that's what the charity does, it builds family accomdoation near children's hospitals so that families can stay near children who are receiving treatment in hospital, that's the whole thing behind the charity, it's not about treating cancer.

LeeHoffmann

Does it really matter what age they were? Honestly?

one poster reckons that cancer mostly affects elderly people who tend to have slo-progressing cancers.

EGAR

Having lost several people in my immediate and extended family in the last 20 years (all under the age of 60 apart from my father who was 62 when he succumbed to a vicious type of cancer in his lungs, spine and brain) - I am totally with Starbelgate when he/she says that this should not be the responsibility of charities but the onus should be on the STATE to provide proper care and facilities for all age groups.

The Princess Bride

My issue with charities is there are too many of them appearing to do the same job-surely it would be better if the smaller charities merged with the main one-cutting down on administration costs,etc.....and everyone did a great job-together- even better.After all,the goal is always the same.

mossyc123 wrote: »

It really is a nonsense of a situation that the provision of Health Care is dependent on charity.

Exactly.

Something seriously wrong when the country's principal cancer charity gets no funding from the state-not one cent.
The Irish Cancer Society is 100% funded by donations from the public- Daffodil Day, Today Fm's Shave or Dye, Movember etc.....shudder to think if we didn't put our hands in our pockets,what would happen.

This fúcking disease isn't going anywhere fast,so all we can do is join together and try to make things easier on everyone.

Charity2020

msthe80s wrote: »

My issue with charities is there are too many of them appearing to do the same job-surely it would be better if the smaller charities merged with the main one-cutting down on administration costs,etc.....and everyone did a great job-together- even better.After all,the goal is always the same.

A lot of smaller towns have their own 'Cancer Card Unit'. Many of them operate their own charity at a local level.
Nothing wrong with this.
You could argue that they should be centrally funded, but you are then back into the whole HSE debate.
The local cancer charities are local people trying t odo something for their community.

The Princess Bride

iDonate wrote: »

A lot of smaller towns have their own 'Cancer Card Unit'. Many of them operate their own charity at a local level.
Nothing wrong with this.
You could argue that they should be centrally funded, but you are then back into the whole HSE debate.
The local cancer charities are local people trying t odo something for their community.

They do amazing work-I agree with what you are saying - I didn't mean the local charities,as most of these pay no salaries- I meant the national smaller ones.
Bottom line- thank God for the support of the public.

Penny Dreadful

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

do you have any links to back this up? I'd be interested to know because that hasn't been my experience. Most of the people I've known who had cancer have been middle-aged. I knew one man who was elderly (70 years old) and one who was young (26). Off the top of my head, I can think of seven people who were middle aged when they found out they had cancer. (We're talking 40-60 here). They all died within a year or two, apart from one man who survived 5-6 years before he succumbed to it. Most of those people were my family.

To the rest of you - of the people you know who've had cancer, were they mostly elderly people or various ages?[/QUOTE]
.My brother died of cancer when he was just short of his 5 birthday.
My uncle (Dad's side) died of leukaemia when he was 37.
My uncle (Dad's side) died of pancreatic cancer when he was 63.
My uncle (Mum's side) died of colon cancer when he was 54
My aunt (Mum's side) died of colon cancer when she was 72
My uncle (Mum's side) is surviving colon cancer. He is now 70 and is 10 years cancer free.
My cousin (Mum's side) is surviving colon cancer. She is now 45 and is 14 years cancer free.

Mental Mickey

smash wrote: »

Does it really matter what age they were? Honestly?

That wasn't my quote. I was quoting - and answering - a previous post.

smash

Mental Mickey wrote: »

That wasn't my quote. I was quoting - and answering - a previous post.

I've edited my post. Your quotes were messed up so I didn't know who actually said it