I looked at this last night and instantly thought – this is very hard to not see it as a class issue. The elephant in all discussions on CAM ‘health’ care.

  • Those who pay  – can.
  • Those who don’t know – keep doing what is creating their problems.
  • What cost starting up growing own veggies?
  • Stopping all sugary drinks and nutrient lacking ingestibles?
  • Banning all alcohol (a carcinogenic substance) and tobacco (ditto).

Looking at who gets what cancer – we can see that smoking and drinking – both alarmingly likely to accelerate your cancer likelihood- rates are much higher with less education and hence money. http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/348/348-141/348-141.html

I know this is about funding – but we (public or private funder) need to know what value we are getting for money. Especially if the very expensive oncology teams are to make headway – what created the cancer needs to no longer be on line – that means – how are the apparently cancer free patients post treatment going to eat to stay well and to live better (cancer free) lives?

Let us start again with prevention, as the lifestyle choices come up also after treatment – of whatever description.

  • What are we funding cancer’s removal  for?
  • User pays? You create it – you pay for its removal? 

This is in essence what those choosing CAM are currently faced with – if people believe they have a better chance without the orthodox – then it is on their shoulders – they decide to go with what they pay for. Because they have so much invested in the outcome (privately funded), they may well put in more amount of effort to ensuring they don’t go down that road twice. 

Where is the research on those who alternatively deal with their health issues? Even if the ‘best’ (and which is this?) care gets rid of the cells that are in ‘rogue mode’ – there is then – how did it start and is the same climate there to remake it? If so then what was the point in spending all that effort and resources?

I think the issue (if we stay just on funding when cancer is present) is swept away.

It is part of the ethical considerations – do we as citizens by just drawing breath (but doing all the ‘damn fool things’ our great grandparents would have a fit over – and hat we call normal – like drinking all those chemically sweetened, chemically tastng, chemically full black fizzy drinks ) – do we fund lifestyle choice treatments for the sufferer to continue to then remake the problem?

If people keep on CAUSING their cancers, and there is no shalt to the growth of what is not helping affirm life (cola drinks, ‘diet’ products and smoking and drinking supplies), it seems a great way to bankrupt a country – all the while having those whose livelihoods depend upon the continued growth of the control of these problems saying how much more needs spending.

If we don’t ask the right questions, we have no idea what is happening.

I suspect cancer preventability will be a ’nanny state’ concept to many. Stopping all access to the carcinogenic factors would mean surely a lessening of the burden of funding cancer services.

We could ask -at what point does self responsibility take hold – in any aspect of the increasing incidence of gluttony and sloth – diabetes, and being overweight. What place common sense?

http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/obesity/obesity-key-facts-and-statistics

Then we could look at obesity in children – what it is ahead?
http://foe.org.nz/obesity-the-facts/health-risks/

http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1448684/2527732.xhtml
The difference between Pacific Island children (10.9 % obese), Maori (5.1% obese) and NZ European/other (0.8%) in these figures is horrific.  

“Extreme obesity was also more common among children having low socioeconomic status.”  “In Pacific Islanders, about one-third of the overweight children displayed extreme obesity, which is a higher proportion than occurred among NZEO (NZ European/other) or Maori.”

I really doubt plant-based diets minus the modern contamination are happening in these children’s lives to obesity.

Living a life as I have mentioned in earlier posts would cut down both the obesity, but all the other future very costly ‘health care’ that will need to happen for these obese children as they age.

http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_research/policy_report/preventability_estimates.php

http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_research/policy_report/preventability_estimates_food.php

I strongly feel that state funding has to go hand in hand with personal responsibilities – those who continue to smoke and drink and who do not veer towards plant-based diets without processed meats are just asking for trouble to return .. . Where did ‘user pays’ – the mantra of the current Govt – go?

References

(as of 20/3/12)