Breast cancer and that terrifying battle…
for celebrities, anyway
As an ordinary citizen who had breast cancer five years ago, I had my mastectomy followed by chemotherapy without hitting the headlines of the Daily Mail and without being pictured pitifully in The Sun with my bald head wrapped in a £400 Hermès scarf.
Along with the other 44,900-odd ordinary women diagnosed with breast cancer every year in the UK, I got on with my treatment and my life as well as possible. Happily, I currently am among the 33,000 or so women diagnosed around the same time as me, who haven’t died from it so far.
OK, there were times during the course of the illness when I was hard pushed to remain my normal, cheerful self. Only whenever I felt sorry for myself I would remember some of my co-chemo warriors, several of whom were far worse off than I was.
One was just 36 years old, a single mother, and was now having chemo after her second mastectomy (she had been through it all previously with the other breast.) Another woman had a bad heart condition and was blind. A third – also a single mum – had had her kids taken into care after their father disappeared and social workers decided she was unfit to look after them while undergoing chemotherapy. And so on.
Now I know it sounds like spiteful sourgrapes. But whereas we ordinary women deal with breast cancer quietly, without complaining too much and often continuing to work and care for our families, famous women seem to get it much worse, if you believe the journalists. And if these women do carry on regardless, they are headlined as heroines….
XXX wins horrendous breast cancer battle
XXX keeps working despite breast cancer ordeal
XXX struck down by deadly breast cancer threat
XXX’s brave battle with breast cancer while the show goes on
As I suggested, it does seem petty in a way to point the finger at women like Jennifer Saunders, Kylie Minogue, Olivia Newton-John, Dame Maggie Smith, Claire Rayner, Linda Nolan, Marianne Faithfull, etc. because they were probably scared witless by their breast cancers just like we all were.
But if you’re a single mum in your thirties on income support with little help from your family and you’ve just been diagnosed with the dreaded beast, you could be forgiven for feeling resentful about these wealthy stars who can afford all the support and care they need.
That doesn’t make the famous version of breast cancer any easier to cope with emotionally, but it sure as hell takes care of the practical problems which often surpass the emotional ones in terms of difficulty to deal with. And the rich and famous can choose to comfort themselves in the most lavish of private hospitals, with no worries about the “postcode” lottery if the latest breast cancer drug doesn’t happen to have been approved by their particular strategic health authority or NHS Trust. 
On the other hand, publicizing the stars’ breast (and other) cancers does serve as a useful tool in bringing people’s attention to the need for vigilance. When Kylie Minogue’s breast cancer was first trumpeted in the press in 2005 the number of women seeking GP appointments to check out lumps and bumps rose noticeably, especially amongst the younger age groups. And this was valuable. Later on, Minogue continued raising awareness, persuading other celebrities to help out.
Equally the work done by singer Sheryl Crow since her diagnosis in 2006 has been effective in raising awareness, especially in her home country of the USA. Oz singer Olivia Newton John has done much the same.
So what do we have here? On the one hand, tabloid journalists’ sensationalist reporting of the stars’ brave battles with breast cancer can, and do, make ordinary women feel like second-class citizens who, if diagnosed, just have to get on with it. On the other hand, many of the stars who have been through breast cancer have done and are still doing a lot to get women checking themselves for lumps (still thought to be the most effective means of early detection.
Overall – and despite the fact that it makes my skin crawl – I favour the sensationalist brandishing of stars’ misfortunes in the media, because raising awareness of breast cancer does save lives.
But although it’s unlikely to do much more than raise ordinary women’s blood pressure, the glorification of these stars’ “incredible bravery and heroism” in the light of their less-than-uncomfortable circumstances is a disgraceful insult to ordinary breast cancer warriors everywhere.
What do you think?
About Special GuestBirds on the Blog welcomes Guest Bloggers of all abilities, if you have something to say and you wish to share it with us - get in touch
View all posts by Special Guest →
25 Responses to Breast cancer and that terrifying battle…
All that jazz – All in A Day
Review of: Cousin Alice Jazz Music by Cousin Alice: Elaine Sturgess Reviewed by: Elaine Sturgess Rating: 5 On January 21, 2012 Last modified: January 30, 2012 Summary: What makes Alice so distinctive is her wonderfully smokey voice, a quality that furniture designer William Yeoward found so arresting at a concert she was performing for the [...]
Pingback: Tweets that mention incredible bravery and heroism" -- Topsy.com
Pingback: Tweets that mention RE: "Cancer is not a problem or an illness – it's a gift. Or so Barbara Ehrenreich was told repeatedly after… -- Topsy.com
An Interesting blog Suze and thanks for sharing this with us. The celebrity “raising Awareness” is one of double edged swords.
I wonder whether you have read about Cheryl Cole's Malaria http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-12930…
This may have 2 outcomes- prevent people from going to malaria hot spots, or concentrate all of our minds that with ease of travel something malaria doesn't only catch the poor of Africa and Asia in which case scientists may do more to find a cure/vaccine. Time will tell!
Wishing you good health brave lady!
For most people cancer is a terrifying disease, for mothers – especially those you have depicted it must be a million times harsher. A relative was diagnosed with this 2 years ago, she had 4 kids, 2 under 5 and worked, hubby wasn't doing very well in his job and it was very tough on her.
I cringed every time I heard the phrase “we're thinking positive thoughts” from her lips, it seems to be the cancer mantra, with no regard to the medicine involved in keeping the people alive. It's a tough break for all who get it, and I guess we need the celebs to keep it in the forefront of the media, even if they have a better chance of surviving than the ordinary women who get it.
I think it's worse than that, really – I think it's more of a covert instruction to be brave or else….and comes dangerously close to the modern idea that if you don't fight your illness (whatever it is, I don't speak from experience with cancer) with all you've got, you are almost collaborating with it. Sorry, it's the language of war that got to me, perhaps.
But why should everyone be brave all the time? I think we all need to feel sorry for ourselves and have a good cry from time to time – without feeling that somehow by doing so we are letting the side down.
Of course most people do soldier on (here we go again) no matter what life throws at them – it's just not practical to collapse in a heap and fall to pieces.
But yes, – if it helps raise awareness and saves lives then we just have to put up with it. Subverting it is good too
Interesting blog, Suze
“Cancer is not a problem or an illness – it's a gift. Or so Barbara Ehrenreich was told repeatedly after her diagnosis. But the positive thinkers are wrong, she says: sugar-coating illnesses can exact a dreadful cost” http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan…
I recall discussing this at the time of publication with a group of people and it does seem to be akin to fighting a war. I thought Ms Ehrenreich had a lot of interesting perspectives, most of which I agree with.
I like Ehrenreich's approach – she's not negative but realistic. There's only so much positive thinking can do – but some people – the dreaded old Law of Attraction believers, seem to think that thoughts directly influence reality. Ummmmm. No. I just saw this RSA video from her – a good summary of the delusion –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo
As I understand it, the people who generally best survive cancer are not those who battle it, but those whose attitude is that they don't have time to indulge it. I have no idea if this is true or not.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Do you agree? Comment on Breast cancer and that terrifying battle by AnnGodridge -- Topsy.com
Pingback: Tweets that mention Do you agree? Comment on Breast cancer and that terrifying battle by Morag -- Topsy.com
Pingback: Tweets that mention Do you agree? Comment on Breast cancer and that terrifying battle by idahorner -- Topsy.com
Pingback: Cherly Cole has malaria and so do some folk in Africa « Ethnic Supplies
I found the article Sarah refers to interesting. It covers so many angles and aspects of the disease that it could give inspiration (should it be needed) for further bite size blogs.
Good to 'see' you again, Suze!
Pondering on what you've said… and other Birds have commented on so far…
I don't know whether Sarah has stats on the percentage by gender of our occasional/ regular and 'big fan' followers but I'd take a (wild'?) guess that 70 – 90% are females. If I'm right, your post is likely to be a topic of interest to most, as well as regular contributors.
I see that the 'why' or the 'who' get the short straw isn't the focus in this post, rather the difference between 'fame' and ignominy; private money, health insurance and connections versus state medical health care and (in the UK) the postal lottery code, is under your microscope here.
So far, I can only personally comment on the big C from a couple of my own scares that, thankfully have been sorted.
An experience of what I believe to have been cancer of someone close to me was several years ago, when many Brits went along with whatever the medical profession dealt out. Nobody back then (or very few) asked questions. That, as an impotent yet questioning observer (daughter as opposed to the patient's wife who had the same accepting attitude as my father) was, in my opinion, appalling.
To be honest, I don't know how or how much it's since changed – I sincerely hope it has. And, anyway, no-one but me will have heard of or have had any interest in a decent guy who lived the latter part of his life in Worthing several years ago…
I believe that, as a nation, we're louder, less accepting and AIDs has rendered very little in the way of diseases as taboo subjects. So maybe that's one good side effect.
So, back to 'Names': They already have a substantial following of people will want to read about them and everything to do with them: so the “star”'s experience with their cancer may even make them seem more accessible – they're after all not SO different from ordinary people. Their fame and money doesn't protect them. Maybe we need that.
I don't think we need to see them only smiling and positive: admitting to having the odd rant and rail and full-blown tantrum before getting on with it like millions of other women might be a touch more realistic all round.
And maybe if more and more of the names who have the strength and courage to do so would use their experience and survival to help others less fortunate in the treatment (and after treatment) stakes, they could really do some good.
BTW, Suze – why don't you link people to your blog (elsewhere, on your own site) – the one where the woman has been left for the mammogram and the electricity goes off… Or reproduce it here later – I think it's an absolute stunner
Twitter: Linda_Mattacks
There did used to be a theory that there was a personality type more prone to developing cancer – but I understand that holds for heart disease (at least some forms of it) but is no longer considered accurate for cancer.
I did read somewhere that social and psychological support makes a difference to outcome – but again, that's not quite the same thing as personality or attitude.
One of the problems was the early studies were all done on people who had been diagnosed already…the usual difficulty with cause and effect there. Surprise, surprise – it turns out that the more ill people are, the more depressed, etc etc.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC236…
I agree Ida, with the double-edged sword. Interesting how some celebs make us angry and some engender sympathy. To me it definitely depends whether it's something I have encountered (trying to get away from all the 'battling' language, it really does seem to blame the victim) myself or not. I remember being incandescent with fury when Princess Di went on camera telling all us lucky people how hard it was to be a single parent. <g>
But then, when the girl from Big Brother (forgotten her name) was open with the media about dying many people thought it a tacky, annoying publicity stunt just to get money for her family but my opinion was that anyone who brought the vital life task of dying (I've worked with the dying for many years) into the public eye was to be commended, ditto anyone who persuaded young women to get themselves smear tests.
And then there's Terry Pratchett, who seems to be universally adored even more for bringing the unsexy Alzheimer's into the public gaze. I suppose we might have to settle for being infuriated at gut level and appreciative intellectually. And to be brutally honest with myself, when I am annoyed at people moaning about something that their fame and money will make it easier to face, I am forgetting something that I tell people during loss and trauma counselling. When they tell me they 'should' be feeling better because other people have it worse my mantra tends to be that pain is pain and we are all entitled to feel it in our own way.
You're absolutely right, Carolyn. Pain is pain, whether you are Ms Average or a famous WAG. And with breast cancer, no-one is immune from the pain, fear, or risk of death, despite being rich and famous or poor and struggling. In many ways that's one of the points that encourage me to think that publicizing celebrities (breast and other) cancers is a good idea, if only because it shows how cancer pays no attention to who you are or how much money you have … in its evil way, it's a great social leveller.
As for Cheryl Cole's malaria … I'm sure other people had written about this extensively so I won't go on about it, but whatever you do … avoid going on a “last minute” holiday to areas where malaria is rife, because you won't have time to get a prophylactic course of anti-malaria medication down yourself. A great (European) friend of mine nearly died because of a similar experience.
Ida (http://ethnicsupplies.org/about-2-2) – what are the statistics about malarial deaths in Africa? As far as I know it still kills millions of people every year, and yet cheerful tourists on cheapo last minute holidays there are ignorant of its dangers.
Twitter: SuzeStMWrites
Pingback: Tweets that mention RE: This is a fascinating sub-thread here: the connection - if any - between mind over matter and cancer. … -- Topsy.com
Many breast (and other) cancer warriors cringe when they hear the phrase “we're thinking positive thoughts” … especially those who know damned well that they are terminal. But however trite that sentiment can appear to be, in a number of cases it keeps people going when all else has failed.
“Positive thinking” has had a bad press and quite rightly so, especially as it has been taken up and misused by a charabanc full of charlatans and soothsayers. But as I say – it can, and does, keep some people going in the face of a lot of negativity.
I hope your relative is going strong, Sarah. xx
Twitter: SuzeStMWrites
This is a fascinating sub-thread here: the connection – if any – between mind over matter and cancer.
Personally I believe many cancers (my own two included) can be triggered by excessive stress. As my good friend Barb Grengs from Minnesota says – she's a double mastectomy veteran – “cancer is something that sneaks in when your immune system is looking the other way.”
Not that there is any suggestion of hocus-pocus – purely a matter of hormones. If you are subjected to prolonged periods of stress your immune system can be compromised as the result of excessive stress hormones galloping around your body in their “fight or flight” capacity.
As we know, with such stimulus unless we run like hell away from the enemy for a few miles or go kill and lion, the resultant hormonal substances remain in the body for a potentially harmful length of time. All the body's activities are focused on backing up the fight or flight response; such functions as digestion, etc., are suppressed until the danger has passed.
In our present way of living when lions aren't too much of a threat and we're not pursued on foot across fields, all this (IMHO) opens the floodgates, as Barb says, for cancer and other illness to sneak in, because our bodies are trying to cope with huge surges of stress hormones which confuse everything from your brain to each individual cell in your body.
Is that about mind over matter? I don’t think so. It’s about chemicals, their imbalances and their after-effects.
What do you think?
Twitter: SuzeStMWrites
Yes, we did go a little off track… Actually there was an interesting report in the news today that suggests that some stress is actually good…but obviously over the top out of control stress isn't. Certainly stress – in the form of those hormones, is implicated in autoimmunity like lupus or RA or MS – stress while in the womb or early childhood is especially implicated – it seems to do something to mess with the way the immune system works – leaves it turned on red alert the whole time. And supposedly people with automimmunity are statistically less likely to develop cancer – whether that's because the other stuff gets them first I don't know.
Genetic predisposition, maybe, in the way our bodies react to these hormones?
I agree though – it's not about mind and personality – whether we are talking about developing illness or recovering from it.
You have hit the nail on the head, Linda. Breast (and other) cancers have no respect for celebrity or the aristocracy!
And the fact that these seemingly “untouchable” icons like Kylie Minogue, Jennifer Saunders, etc. get breast cancer and have to deal with the same fear, pain, discomfort and everything else as we do (OK, perhaps in more comfortable surroundings) brings the whole issue of cancer and its consequences into a realistic perspective.
By the way, just for you … here's the link to that story on CancerComicStrip …
http://cancercomicstrip.blogspot.com/2009/09/po…
!! Sz
Twitter: SuzeStMWrites
Thanks Suze – each time I read that story the phrase 'justifiable homicide' pops into my brain…
Twitter: Linda_Mattacks
I think that will never change. Everything celebrities experience seems to be on speed in relation to us (common folk). But then they are in the lime-light.
I reckon youre winning battle with breast cancer is amazing! Just focus on the pluses they do.
I read somewhere that in Uganda alone 340 people die from malaria a day. I would imagine this figure to be much higher as postmortems are not ordinarily carried carried out when people die especially in rural areas. I also understand that figures are fairly high in India
This ignorance of malaria makes me sooo angry … particularly the way the western press sweep its huge death toll under the carpet unless, of course, it strikes down a pop star. According to the World Health Organization (WHO)…
“About 3.3 billion people – half of the world's population – are at risk of malaria. Every year, this leads to about 250 million malaria cases and nearly one million deaths. People living in the poorest countries are the most vulnerable. Malaria is especially a serious problem in Africa, where one in every five (20%) childhood deaths is due to the effects of the disease. An African child has on average between 1.6 and 5.4 episodes of malaria fever each year. And every 30 seconds a child dies from malaria.”
[http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/malaria/en/index.html]
Oh, and don't forget “swine flu” … remember how much publicity that got? Yet it killed just 14,286 people worldwide in one year (2009), according to Wikipedia. A very small fraction of the destruction malaria causes every single year.
There's something very, very wrong here…
Twitter: SuzeStMWrites