No I'm not ill, nor am I brave. Two friends of mine are currently recovering from operations to remove cancers, and we got talking about how nobody simply receives cancer treatment, they are instead said to be 'battling' it. And because they are involved in this constant battle they are also said to be 'brave'.

So what happens to the ones who die? Do they die bravely? Did they die because they were weak or cowardly or simply shit at battling?

I know it's a bit petty to dig into the semantics of common parlance relating to life-threatening illnesses, but I'm sure all this came from some solitary dickhead at a red-top newspaper once, probably in the '80s, and I'm really sick of hearing these stupid phrases now.

Always thought its more to do with morale or something. We cant physically "battle" cancer. We can be brave about it, but pretty sure that wont make it go away. So the least we could do is reassure the people and help them stay positive I guess. Thats how I see it.

Also, what do you mean with, "nobody receives cancer treatment"?

We dont have a definite cure for cancer, but we do have chemicals and various radiation therapys.

Quote from DevilDare :

Always thought its more to do with morale or something. We cant physically "battle" cancer. We can be brave about it, but pretty sure that wont make it go away. So the least we could do is reassure the people and help them stay positive I guess. Thats how I see it.

Also, what do you mean with, "nobody receives cancer treatment"?

We dont have a definite cure for cancer, but we do have chemicals and various radiation therapys.

i think he is trying to say its not as easy as to just take treatment, you need to fight it

Relevant:

http://www.xkcd.com/931/

How can you "fight" cancer? There is nothing you can do that will magically make cells in your body fight it off.

But this is where beliefs come in I guess, and I dont want to go down that road because more often then not, it all ends up in a rage argument.

I imagine it is a twist from "they are fighting for their life" although I'm not sure how much fighting is involved and just sheer luck that your body doesn't go into shock or reject the procedure. It then twisted into "they are battling [namehere]". Because war, that is a great analogy to use for cancer. Or you'll read head lines like "heroic feather/mother of x fights [insertillnesshere]." Where is the hero there? They are hoping they get lucky and don't die yet.

I've never understood the way language is used in a lot of cases like this. Like guys who get blown up by an IED in Afghan, they were unlucky bastards, but how are they heroes? Stepping on a trip wire isn't heroic. The poor SoBs who have to attempt and save their buddy while taking part in a fire fight, that is heroic. I don't want this to sound like I don't have respect for the guys who go out there, because I have nothing but respect for them. But by stepping on a mine you're not a hero.

Now if you saw a grenade land at your feet and the choices were you jump on it and save the lives of everyone else, or jump behind a wall to save your own skin and you jumped on the 'nade. That is a hero.

Again I think that's tabloid language.

I think what I take offense to is not the sentiment - they're just trying to be kind to people in difficult circumstances - but the hyperbolic nature of the language they choose. Once everyone from dead soldiers to toddlers with measles are brave battling heroes there's not much room left to manoeuvre.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

I've never understood the way language is used in a lot of cases like this. Like guys who get blown up by an IED in Afghan, they were unlucky bastards, but how are they heroes? Stepping on a trip wire isn't heroic. The poor SoBs who have to attempt and save their buddy while taking part in a fire fight, that is heroic. I don't want this to sound like I don't have respect for the guys who go out there, because I have nothing but respect for them. But by stepping on a mine you're not a hero.

Now if you saw a grenade land at your feet and the choices were you jump on it and save the lives of everyone else, or jump behind a wall to save your own skin and you jumped on the 'nade. That is a hero.

However in most cases it is a choise to enlist and become part of the army. In a way the idea is not about the active sacrifice of stepping on ied on purpose but to put yourself into situation where you are open to such situations.

Unless you are some poor russian bloke who is ordered and sent to Chechnya you have probably done the choise yourself when you decided to apply for, say, un peacetroops and put your life and health at risk. In the end getting shot or stepping on ied is no different. Heroic acts usually depend on right circumstances. How much in the end is there actual courage and heroicness and how much of it is just something one can only respond in one way? Were the japanese kamikaze fight pilots more heroic than the regular guys sitting in bunkers?

At a more core level the casualties of war rarely are heroic acts. But they still are sacrifices.

---
As far as fighting against cancer goes I'd imagine the only real fighting part is the mental aspect. The connection between human body and mind is still somewhat mystified and maybe its the idea that keeping a positive outlook increases your chances of survival. So in a way you can fight cancer. Or it is seen that giving such idea to the sick person could in some way help him at least deal with the situation.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

I've never understood the way language is used in a lot of cases like this. Like guys who get blown up by an IED in Afghan, they were unlucky bastards, but how are they heroes? Stepping on a trip wire isn't heroic. The poor SoBs who have to attempt and save their buddy while taking part in a fire fight, that is heroic. I don't want this to sound like I don't have respect for the guys who go out there, because I have nothing but respect for them. But by stepping on a mine you're not a hero.

All depends on the circumstances of the incident. Say the guy blown up was the soldier in front with the metal detector scanning for IED's to "protect" his squad.

Thats not "heroic"? Certainly is brave.

kinda petty of you even if its true
not like theres much you can do about it anyway other than suffer through the pains and what we unironically consider treatments these days and hope for the best

Quote from DevilDare :

All depends on the circumstances of the incident. Say the guy blown up was the soldier in front with the metal detector scanning for IED's to "protect" his squad.

Thats not "heroic"? Certainly is brave.

Oh for sure, as I mentioned, if you're getting killed saved the lives of the guys with you, that is heroic. But the vast majority of IED victims have died in vain.

If everyone who steps on a mine is a hero does that mean that a local Afghan who steps out of his house in the morning is a hero after he steps on an IED? No, it means he was unlucky.

Signing up and choosing to put your life in danger is bloody brave in itself (although a lot of guys I've spoken to only did it because they left school without qualifications and just wanted the pay cheque), but how you die isn't automatically heroic because you're a serving soldier.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Oh for sure, as I mentioned, if you're getting killed saved the lives of the guys with you, that is heroic. But the vast majority of IED victims have died in vain.

If everyone who steps on a mine is a hero does that mean that a local Afghan who steps out of his house in the morning is a hero after he steps on an IED? No, it means he was unlucky.

Signing up and choosing to put your life in danger is bloody brave in itself (although a lot of guys I've spoken to only did it because they left school without qualifications and just wanted the pay cheque), but how you die isn't automatically heroic because you're a serving soldier.

What? I Sign up to defend and I expect nothing..even at the cost of a Leg

It's just merely words used to raise the victim's hope and morale i would say in terms of using the word "brave".

Quote from Sueycide_FD :

It's just merely words used to raise the victim's hope and morale i would say in terms of using the word "brave".

A) He is not dyin'

Misleading Post

"He's about as brave as a Church Mouse"

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Again I think that's tabloid language.

I think what I take offense to is not the sentiment - they're just trying to be kind to people in difficult circumstances - but the hyperbolic nature of the language they choose. Once everyone from dead soldiers to toddlers with measles are brave battling heroes there's not much room left to manoeuvre.

moral boosting? help build confidence and make them feel better about the treatment.

Quote from Shotglass :

kinda petty of you even if its true

Yeah I know. Maybe I'm just really tired of cliches in general.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Signing up and choosing to put your life in danger is bloody brave in itself (although a lot of guys I've spoken to only did it because they left school without qualifications and just wanted the pay cheque), but how you die isn't automatically heroic because you're a serving soldier.

Yeah that's true but they are still putting their lives at risk even if they don't really understand the all possible consequences and risks.

Quote from DevilDare :

How can you "fight" cancer? There is nothing you can do that will magically make cells in your body fight it off.

But this is where beliefs come in I guess, and I dont want to go down that road because more often then not, it all ends up in a rage argument.

1. You don't know what the body is capable of though

2. A bloody good diet cutting out all the shit, and I mean all the shit (meats, shit food etc...) can reduce the risk of cancer, and has been known to help patient recovers.

Pretty sure that cutting out meats is a bad idea. Cutting out carbohydrates is an awesome idea though, considering that cancer cells cannot be fueled by anything but carbohydrates, but healthy cells can.
Not saying it's a cure, but it's something to think about

Edit: Source for what I'm saying. One of the newest cancer studies available.

<looks up with a child-like innocence>
"Is it time for my treatment?"

Quote from RasmusL :

Pretty sure that cutting out meats is a bad idea. Cutting out carbohydrates is an awesome idea though, considering that cancer cells cannot be fueled by anything but carbohydrates, but healthy cells can.
Not saying it's a cure, but it's something to think about

Edit: Source for what I'm saying. One of the newest cancer studies available.

Many studies confirm there is a correlation (I won't go further than that) between Vegan/Veggie diets and a general reduced risk to cancer. Not all cancers though, just generally. That could be environmental factors tho. Their are even raw foodists who've seen some amazing results. I knew a guy who cured his diabetes. I am not taking the piss. The doctors were a bit miffed to say the least

I've been eating a Vegan diet for a few months, and a Veggie for a year or so. Can't say I've felt any negatives. I feel healthier now than I have ever done... touch wood

I don't think cutting out Carbs is going to help. It fuels your muscles, brain, and nerve system.

Point being if you eat shit your body is designed for, then of course you are at a greater risk.

Most people eat way more carbs than is good for you IMO.
In my mind, and I read a lot of research critically, carbohydrates can very easily be toxic and are the main cause of overweight today.

I would say, for the average healthy person without metabolic syndrome, 50 to 100g of carbs a day is the upper limit. If you wanna lose weight or you have metabolic syndrome, go much lower.

I could quite literally quote thousands of legitimate sources with the same attitude towards carbohydrates. The lipid hypothesis, which is 'general wisdom', is a fallacy in many ways.

I'll take a look at that.

I'd generally agree there is a lot of bullshit out there. One of them is protein intake. You really don't need the amount many people think you do as well. I see so many people with protein shakes, and really the benefit is minimal (if any at all) and it's full of shit.

Quote from Intrepid :

Point being if you eat shit your body is designed for, then of course you are at a greater risk.

We're omnivores, we're designed to eat everything.

The arguments about carbs make sense to a point, certainly refined carbs aren't great in large quantities and a lot of people make them a staple food. I'm still going to eat a sandwich if I want a sandwich though.

TBH my diet and exercise must be pretty well matched because given the amount of booze I drink I should be a massively fat bastard.

Quote from RasmusL :

Most people eat way more carbs than is good for you IMO.
In my mind, and I read a lot of research critically, carbohydrates can very easily be toxic and are the main cause of overweight today.

I'd add glucose to the list aswell.

I've heard that you basically need to starve the cancer cells by only eating fresh vegetables and minimal sugar, if any. I'm no doctor though.

E: Intrepid beat me