Law-Forums.org

[chozai65]

"Your report (Lifestyle could prevent 40% of cancers, 7 December) identifies smoking, intake of certain foods and alcohol as major preventable causes of cancers, and Cancer Research UK stresses that individuals need to address lifestyles. This seriously de-contextualises the problem and seems to take us yet again down a victim-blaming route. Income and social class connect directly, for example, to the poor diet imposed by Britain's OECD-documented widening income inequalities. It also produces poor housing near busy, polluting roads and explains dusty, dirty, chemical-laden jobs and long hours. These social, political and physical environmental factors all play into cancer incidence and prevalence, and should form part of a coherent cancer prevention strategy, which the UK lacks.

In Scotland, consecutive governments have looked at life circumstances as factors in creating ill-health and developed policies accordingly. This includes looking at and controlling the role of manufacturers and retailers of carcinogens in an effort to reduce exposures. In the UK we have industries that produce and governments that happily allow the production of carcinogens for consumption. What are cancer charities doing to prevent this and ensure upstream prevention of availability of and exposure to such substances? It seems many do little or nothing.

If social, economic and environmental deprivation is considered, another range of cancer prevention interventions – likely to be easier and cheaper to implement than lifestyle and behavioural programmes – would have a bigger impact. But that would of course mean taking on industry and challenging government. An illustration of the skewing of responsibilities comes, for instance, with failure to recognise that the report's estimated one in 25 cancers due to the workplace will include few middle and upper managers but will hit many manual workers in manufacturing and service industries disproportionately and they do not choose to be exposed to the carcinogens they have to work with. And where is the response to the 2011 Asturias declaration, following a WHO/International Agency on Cancer conference? These events included environmental and occupational exposures as preventable causes of a significant number of cancers and outlined prevention strategies that did not blame the consumer or individual, who comes at the end of a long line of agencies and bodies that produced, marketed and profited from the carcinogen industries...."

What's your opinion to this article? Should the consumer be blamed or the social infrastructure of the UK? Is it really just a matter of lifestyle choices versus life chances/circumstances, or is it more complex? Is there any right answer?

[devon]

It is a mix. Lung cancer in smokers is the fault of people smoking. Asbestosis is more socioeconomic (with poorer populations exposed to asbestos containing materials in disrepair) and industrial. Exposure to chemical mutagens would be more work place. Childhood cancers due to lead exposure are more socioeconomic because of increased environmental dangers in poorer areas.

Also, advances in medical technologies have extended our lives and pushed back against many killers of the last 10 - 50 years. We are living longer and not dying from massive influenza outbreaks, so we are more likely to die from cancer.