Metastatic breast cancer as chronic illness

Please, please, please read Scorchy Barrington’s latest post “Chronic Illness”.

Scorchy has outdone herself in this valuable post. Starting from the point of her mets diagnosis just a few months ago, she continues with a critical reading of the Komen organization and then moves smoothly to Peggy Orenstein’s brilliant article in the New York Times  “Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer,” (Sunday Magazine,New York Times, April 25, 2013) and a review of Laurie Edward’s book In the Kingdom of the Sick: A Social History of Chronic Disease in America  (New York: Walker, 2013).

I am not going to attempt to recap the post. Just go on over to The Sarcastic Boob and read it for yourself.

You may also like...

10 Responses

  1. Scorchy says:

    You are a sweetie. XOXOXOXO

  2. gregsmithmd says:

    I will be VERY interested in talking with you about this AND in getting my fired-up, sixty mile-walking daughter’s take on it as well.


    • Knot Telling says:

      My issue with Komen is that the organization spends far more money on “awareness” (not to mention organizational expenses and salaries) than on research. There is some data available that breaks down their budget; I’ll have a look around and find it for you.

      • gregsmithmd says:

        I’ve also sent you something from my daughter that breaks down the money granted via Komen for various projects. Do you think these are worthwhile? Necessary? Off the mark?

      • Knot Telling says:

        Greg, I can’t nest any more replies, but this is to you.

        My issue is not with the research that Komen funds, but with the very small portion of funds raised that are used for research. Here is a link to a Reuter’s article. It’s from last year, but the situation remains much the same: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-usa-healthcare-komen-research-idUSTRE8171KW20120208

        The article states that in 2011 Komen spent about 15% of money raised on research, down from 17% in 2009 and 2010 and 29% in 2008.

        It is positive that only 18% is spent on administration, however: “The organization’s 2011 financial statement reports that 43 percent of donations were spent on education, 18 percent on fund-raising and administration, 15 percent on research awards and grants, 12 percent on screening and 5 percent on treatment. (Various other items accounted for the rest.)”

  3. Maxine D says:

    An indepth and very interesting article – so glad N.Z. only recommends and funds screening every two years for 50 – 70 yr olds – it makes great sense now!! Yes, fear is a great motivator to use to raise funds for a pet project!!
    Prayers and blessings

  4. was a very interesting read. Thx Knots and Scorchy too.

  5. Knot Telling says:

    Thanks for reading and commenting, Maxine and cherrysandpipes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: