This isn't about me, it's a country wide issue where many people are dying from prostate cancer. It's been highlighted that prostate cancer receives half the funding of breast cancer, what do you think about that discrepancy?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Prostate Cancer
- Thread starter abc
- Start date
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I've just added some stats to my post that you've quoted. Women have been fund raising for over 20 years contributing £547 million to research.
Get off your backsides men, and fund raise for Prostate Cancer.
So I've asked for your opinion on the disparity in funding and your response is that it's our own fault. Unbelievable.
It's also not just women that have raised funds for breast cancer. One of my friends regularly raises money for breast cancer, having lost his young wife to it. And much of the donations come from men.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
That's good, I'm pleased he is. I'm not saying it's your own fault, I'm saying raise money.
The disparity is that women see something needs doing and get on with it. Men see a problem, and very often, hope it goes away. Men are notorious for not going to the doctor when something is wrong.
*now ducks and hides away.
I sometimes take longer having a wee than a poo and that's not a joke. The last couple of jets left in can be dangerous with urinary infections common. Suppose it's a sign of getting older but never been embarrassed about anything for seeing my doctor.
Eric Potts
Well-known member
Go and see the GP . You’ll have a finger up your exhaust pipe for a few seconds , and some blood taken . It could save your life.
Breast cancer has (rightly) received tons of press for decades to help raise funds. Prostate cancer hasn't received the same high profile, and it should (which is why the footy lot wear the badge, although many don't know what it is).
That is true, and something that media attention can help address.
You're a sensible poster, but I don't agree with your general attitude on this subject. It's a serious topic. Obviously all of us here have/will lose loved ones to all types cancer. Responding with 'So how are you going to raise money for them? Are you joining in the Walk? Get off your backsides men, and fund raise for Prostate Cancer' isn't reasonable IMO. And it shouldn't just be down to men to raise money (and awareness) for it (just as it isn't just down to women to raise money and awareness for breast cancer.
Only my opinion of course.
maffew
Well-known member
It's actually quite a funny joke if it was but it had been done before
Your'e saying that breast cancer has twice as much funding because there are 2 breasts from what I see. Do you realise how ludicrous that is. You say you arent a feminist but sorry sometimes you really do post as such
I have. I was diagnosed as anaemic so have completely changed my diet this year. The finger up the bum was not pleasant. Where are the 23-year-old blonde girls when you need them? To be fair, I only have about four pee's a day. My dad had an operation when he had prostate trouble.
Sincere thanks for your help though, Eric Potts.
maffew
Well-known member
and it is a good one
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
No, I wasn't saying that, but there are more places to get the cancer when there are twice the number of glands.
As I have pointed out, posters are shouting for funding, which obviously isn't coming from the NHS, so therefore the fund raising has to come from volunteers.
Eric Potts
Well-known member
No problem . However the fact that I’m discussing prostate health , with strangers on the internet means that i’m officially No Longer Young. What happened to that skinny 17 year old punk with a full head of hair?I have. I was diagnosed as anaemic so have completely changed my diet this year. The finger up the bum was not pleasant. Where are the 23-year-old blonde girls when you need them? To be fair, I only have about four pee's a day. My dad had an operation when he had prostate trouble.
Sincere thanks for your help though, Eric Potts.
maffew
Well-known member
I am sorry and I respect you as a poster BUT
Are you saying that an equal number of money is needed into research into left and right breasts? You are from where I am sat. We arent talking about treatment costs of someone gets breast cancer twice and heaven forbid that should happen to any poor soul
That comes to treatment costs not research, have a think about it
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
No, I am not saying that. Both you and Trigaaar are reading more into my posts than I said. There are more different types of breast cancer.
Anyway, I'll stop digging now.
maffew
Well-known member
That is a fair point and one I am happy to be educated on. Having 2 boobs isnt the reason then. I will leave it too
A lot of money comes from the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI), which co-ordinates where the money goes. Not all of the money put towards breast cancer comes from money raised specifically for it.
So it's my fault, it's not possible that what you said wasn't fair?
MattBackHome
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 11,726
End of the 90's I believe it was about 50% more deaths from breast cancer compared to prostate. Given the patient profiles of both (ages plus the later diagnoses for men) I'd suggest that it's not completely ridiculous for the investment discrepancy to be what it was.
I suspect that it's not all that easy to quickly alter the difference as much of the funding will be based on long term commitments, much will be from organisations dedicated to a specific cancer/patient group and there is a much stronger history of breast cancer giving (i.e. R4L); prostate is still playing catch up. But I agree totally that obviously it should be closer now.
D
Deleted member 2719
Guest
If we don't beat the Hammers at home that could just get quite a few of us.
Huge amounts of funding comes from charity. Especially for research. For example the British Hart Foundation spends £100 million a year on research. All this money coms from charity shops and events like the sponsored London to Brighton cycle ride. Some charities ar better than others at getting funding. It would not surpris me if the Fail has mixed up NHS targeted spending with NHS unrelated spending. In any case 'twice as much' means nothing in this context. This thread is pointless.