Opinion Piece: Who is Responsible for Cancer? (Post #22)

Hi! Welcome back to the blog! Today we will be shifting our lens away from biology and focus more on the humanities aspect of cancer. We have learned what cancer is, its relation to lifestyle, and treatments for it. Part of this conversation was prevention methods. This included guidance to not smoke, eat nutritious food, and exercise regularly. So if you don't follow these guidelines, it is your responsiblity if you are diagnosed?

Some patients or their communities might feel this way, but it's not really that simple.

Let's look at an example scenario. Person A develops oral cancer after 10+ years of smoking. Who is responsible? Is it Person A who used the cigarette, the company that sold it, the government that allowed it to be advertised, or the healthcare system that didn't conduct early screening?

Rather than one, I believe that all parties carry some responsibility in this situation.

First, let's look at the diagnosed individual. This person, over years, would have made the choice about whether to smoke, chew tobacco, drink alcohol, wear sunscreen, get vaccinated, and get regularly screened. Making the decision to quit smoking or not start in the first place would have drastically reduced their risk of cancer. However, considering each individual's situation is also important. People's choices are shaped by their surroundings: family, financial situation, culture, education and access to healthcare. It is also true that people who are addicted are often unable to make the decision to quit (due to its reward-system effect on the brain), and avoiding preservative-containing food is extremely difficult for a modern-day working person.

Increasing awareness is important here, as a person who understands the science behind these cancer-linked habits would be more likely to avoid it compared to an unaware person.

Next, let's talk about the companies selling the tobacco/alcohol/cigarettes. In discussions, they are often blamed for the "spread" of addictive substances. But why?

Well, tobacco products are addictive in nature because they contain a substance called nicotine. This chemical affects the brain like a drug, making the brain crave more and over time, making quitting increasingly difficult. In the past, tobacco companies have used marketing to make tobacco seem desirable, despite knowing its ill effects. They have also downplayed these ill effects. This increases their profit. So, we have to ask, how much responsibility does a company have to prevent the ill effects of their products?

Some parties in this debate would say that it is majorly the company's responsibility. They are creating and selling people a harmful substance, knowing its effects, and so it is their duty to prevent these effects. Others might counteract this by saying that companies are entirely for profit. Their impact on customers doesn't matter so much, because it is the customer's responsibility to be aware of the product they are buying.

I can see both sides of the argument. While companies exist to make money, I think they should still be morally aware and take some of the responsibility associated with diseases caused by their product. My opinion is that companies should better their products in any way beneficial to customers. Just like car companies are switching from producing gas-powered cars to electric cars, I think cigarette companies should slowly transition to lower-tobacco or tobacco-free options. While these options are definitely still addictive and harmful, they lower the risk of cancer and still allow the company to profit. These companies should also provide more accurate health information, even without governments mandating it.

Next, let's talk about governments. Governments are also occasionally blamed for citizens' diseases, so what role do governments even have in this discussion?

Well, governments can influence the environment and guidelines of the country. For example:

• what companies are allowed to sell goods in the country

• the tax on carcinogenic substances

• how much advertising tobacco companies can conduct

• deciding the minimum age to buy these substances (cigarettes, alcohol, etc.)

• requiring health warnings on tobacco products

• regulating the ingredients and packaging of carcinogenic products

• funding cancer screening and treatment

• supporting public health education

  
  

At the same time though, governments have to also manage the economy. Many governments gain substantial taxes from selling these products, and their trade creates jobs. This means governments have to decide between short-term economic benefit and long-term public health.

istock.com/serenatkeskin

Lastly, let's discuss healthcare systems. The healthcare system is different in every country. Overall though, the system is not responsible only for treating diseases after they appear, but also helping manage prevention. This includes things like early screenings.

For oral and throat cancer specifically, this may include:

• regular lesion checking for those who smoke, chew tobacco, or have a genetic predisposition

• teaching common healthcare workers to recognize symptoms like lesions

• making free testing accessible, especially for the lower class

• helping the public understand the disease, prevention, and symptoms

For cancer, this is especially important because early diagnosis greatly increases survival rate. However, due to socioeconomic differences in society, access in not equal. A person living in a village might not have access to a hospital at all or have very few specialists near them. At the same time, a person living in the city will have many healthcare options, and is more likely to have the funds for treatment.

Ultimately, I believe that all of these parties share the responsibility. Based on the unique situation, this responsibility might be uneven among the three, but it should never solely be placed on one.

in some families and communities, cancer prevention is treating as a matter of discipline. If people know what they should avoid, why not simple avoid it? However, a person's circumstances play a great role.

Someone living in a village without screening opportunities will not be able to attend one. A person suffering financially will not be able to afford a follow up doctor's appointment. An addict cannot always quit because someone tells them the substance is harmful.

For this, our community, including the individual, company, government, and healthcare system, has to work together. They have to create less harmful products, learn about prevention, provide support systems for addicts, make screenings free, and create policies that support the public.

Thanks for reading this week's post! I hope it was thought-provoking. If you have any thoughts on this topic, similar or different, feel free to leave a comment! See you for the next post!

Image Citation:

iStock image