Changing the course of cancer history

[Posted: Wed 26/08/2009 by Joanne McCarthy - www.irishhealth.com]

More than 500 world leaders, non-governmental organisations, corporation representatives and individual advocates gathered this week at the Livestrong Global Cancer Summit at the RDS in Dublin.
 
The three-day event aimed to ‘change the course of cancer in history’ by providing a platform for world leaders to create a sustained movement to fight cancer.
 
The summit is an initiative of the Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF), designed to address the global cancer burden.  Founded and chaired by world-famous cyclist and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong, the LAF is aimed at raising awareness, funding research and ending the stigma of cancer that many survivors face.
 
“Cancer will be the leading cause of death next year unless we act on a global level,” said Mr Armstrong.  “Our goal is to be the catalyst that brings everyone together to fight cancer - from survivors, like me, to advocates from the farthest reaches of the globe, to world leaders and policy makers who must commit completely to the effort to avoid a public health catastrophe.”
 
On Monday, the summit saw the launch of the first report detailing the global burden of cancer in economic terms. Breakaway: The global burden of cancer – challenges and opportunities estimates that the total economic burden of new cancer cases cost the global economy $305 billion in 2009. The report calls for world leaders to make new investments in cancer control.
 
Cancer is the second largest cause of death around the world, and the report points out that it could move to the top spot next year. It is believed that there will be 12.9 million new cancer cases this year, and the number is on the increase. By 2020, the figure will be 16.8 million.
 
Cancer rates all over the world are on the increase, especially in developing countries. More than half of new cancer cases and nearly two-thirds of cancer deaths occur in the developing world. Most cancer cases in the developing world are caught too late, with as many as 80% described as incurable. In spite of this, the vast majority of money spent on cancer services are invested in developed countries.
 
The report stresses that in spite of the challenges, there is room for optimism. Cancer is the most preventable of all chronic diseases and the quality of life of cancer patients has vastly improved in the last decade, it says.
 
The report concludes that every government should develop and adopt a national cancer plan, that funding for cancer research and prevention should be prioritised as a public health investment, and that efforts to reduce stigma of cancer patients and survivors should be made.
 
Lance Armstrong’s return to cycling was credited by LAF President and CEO Doug Ulman as the reason behind the foundation’s ability to maintain its funding and create the opportunities it has made.
 
Lance Armstrong returned to cycling earlier this year after a four-year absence.  Mr Armstrong previously battled testicular cancer, which spread to his brain, abdomen and lungs, before coming back to win the Tour de France a record seven years in a row.

The Lance Armstrong Foundation was set up in 1997 to make cancer a national priority in the US. To date, it has raised US $310 million. More than 85% of the money raised goes into programmes to support survivors.
 
Last year, with the support of former US President Bill Clinton, the foundation decided to make its Livestrong cancer awareness campaign a global event.
 
Mr Armstrong said that the burden of cancer has always been a personal one. It affects everyone, whether it is their mothers, fathers, grandparents or children, he said.

The Tobacco Atlas
 
On Tuesday the summit unveiled the 2009 edition of The Tobacco Atlas, revealing that tobacco use kills an estimated six million people a year and costs the global economy $500 billion annually.

The Atlas gives a complete overview of the global effects of tobacco. It reveals the prevalence and consumption of tobacco, the health risks and mortality associated with it, the economic costs of tobacco, gives health and quitting information, and advises on the future of the epidemic.
 
The Atlas describes Ireland as among the world leaders in tobacco control, confirming that Ireland and the UK are among the countries with the strongest tobacco control policies, delivering both economic and health benefits.
 
Ireland has ratified the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), banned smoking in workplaces, increased tobacco tax, implemented effective mass media campaigns and advertising restrictions. Irish people who want to quit smoking receive subsidised access to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and certain clinical cessation services. Furthermore, one year after the implementation of the 2004 smoking ban, cigarette sales declined by 18%.
 
However, the Atlas also revealed that the Irish economy lost US$980 million (€686 million) in 2007 because of tobacco use. The economic costs emerged as a result of lost productivity, misused resources, missed opportunities for taxation, and premature death. Because one in four smokers die and many more become ill during their most productive years, income loss devastates families and communities, according to the Atlas.
 
According to the Tobacco Atlas, more than two million cancer deaths per year will be attributable to tobacco by 2015. Most people who die from tobacco-related illnesses are now in low and middle-income countries, because of major increases in tobacco production in the developing world.
 
At the launch of the Atlas, Mr Armstrong was asked what one thing he would choose to focus on to reduce cancer rates if he had to. Mr Armstrong wrote his response in an article in USA Today: “That’s easy: tobacco. It's the only product that, if used as directed, will kill you. One third of all cancer deaths are attributed to this drug.”
 
“One hundred million people were killed by tobacco in the 20th century and if we do nothing, another billion lives will be lost in the 21st,” he continued. “We know that tobacco kills. We need to bridge this gap by educating people around the globe about the dangers of tobacco and do all we can to stop the use of the products.”
 

JMM  Posted: 28/08/2009 23:35

Thank you for your insights on this world wide challenge. One would think that given the health issues that tabacco use brings forth, that it would be banned as many other known poisons are. Is the Tabacco Companies influence so mighty that they will continue to be aloud to manufacture, distribute and market a lethal product, without any legal consequences? Why are our Representives not looking out for our "best interests" as they do on other issues such as birth control or fire arms lawas? It is all disheartening, it appears that many of our Governments are "bought & paid for", as the only retribution for causing people to die a slow and painful death, is to "Tax" these Companies. John Michael McCarthy

Anonymous  Posted: 31/08/2009 10:58

Chris There is a two pronged apporach, I think - cure and prevention. In order for cure to be effective, it has to be timely, therefore screening must be brought into place. In relation to prevention I think the 18% in cigarette sales is meaningless given that so many people simply bring then in from abroad.

ruefus  Posted: 13/09/2009 14:57

i agree with JMM they should be banned!! signed hooked cigarette smoker

buzz  Posted: 14/09/2009 15:05

There is no point banning them as this will simply push the industry underground and will serve to feed and propagate black market crime and exploitation not to mention counterfits which could prove even more dangerous. People are educated. Let them decide for themselves. What good is health if we have no free will?

Anonymous  Posted: 22/09/2009 11:15

Chris, I take your point Buzz, but surely that could be applied to everything from hard drugs to overdosing on OTC medication.

buzz  Posted: 23/09/2009 12:09

Sorry Chris I dont actually know what your point is? Perhaps it is still too early in the day for me ha ha. I would be at pains to equate mis-use (as clearly defined versus abuse) with the use of IV drugs such as heroin.

Anonymous  Posted: 23/09/2009 14:54

Chris Sorry Buzz, it was a very rushed post as I'm not really online much at all this week. My point was what you claim about banning cigaretts pushing them undergroud and depriving people of thier free will could equally be applied to, for example, drugs. Banning them has pushed them underground one could argue and propagates black market crime and exploitation and results in them being mixed (cut) with lethal substances and deprives people a free will to use them. But no one would suggest, educated or not that hard drugs be freely available.

buzz  Posted: 24/09/2009 14:07

No thats ok! I actually thought I was on a different thread duh! I see your point. I think hard drugs will always be viewed by society as less acceptable than tobacco (and also if tobacco was banned then we all know what would come next...alcohol - EEEK!) so I think that is where the seemingly double standards come in. I for one would be far more upset by my child using heroin than smoking tobaco so am happy for heroin to remain illegal but perhaps you are right, legalising would at least prevent the fat sleazy dealers profiting but of course we would need to be careful not to actually condone it, which legalising could be interpreted as. I certainly would not be going about providing plush usage rooms and free drugs for junkies until we can provide basics such as food and shelter to our homeless men,women and children. What kind of a society would let a child go hungry on the streets while providing drugs courtesy of the state?

Anonymous  Posted: 25/09/2009 08:35

Chris With regard to alcohol being on the list next if tobacco was banned - this I think would be folly for 2 reasons - 1. The prohobition in the U.S. in the early part of this century not only failed spectacularly but gave rise to a mafia still in existence today and spawned the greatest generation of alcoholics the U.S. had ever known. And 2, the major differences between alcohol and tobacco is that the vast majority of smokers continue to smoke becuase they are addicted to the substance in cigarettes which continues to be used for that very purpose. The majority of drinkers are not alcoholics. Also, while there may be certain health benefits to low/moderate alcohol consumption, there are none to cigarette smoking. I for one would be horrified by my child using heroin but also disgusted and upset if she smoked - at any age. But that is not the ase for responsible alcohol consumption. I agree that legalising implies condoning and alos that it is certainly not a priority.

To join the discussion, register by clicking here