Before I get to business on this blog, I'd first like to apologize to my "followers" for the delay between posts. With midterms, training, and everything in between, this past month has been quite a whirlwind. That said, I admit that it has been nice to hear requests for an update. I am pleased to know that you have an interest in reading what I write. Well, either that, or you need something to distract you during work. Either way, I am happy to oblige, and I thank you for your continued support.
Yesterday, I had a great meeting with Deborah Walsh, executive director for LCRF. After months of peppering her and her wonderful staff with countless emails and phone calls, it was nice to finally chat in person. Our discussion was very enthralling, but there is one story that Deborah shared with me that continues to bother me.
Deborah began to tell me about the history of LCRF, and its founder, Laurie Carson. Prior to starting LCRF, Laurie worked for a prominent cancer treatment institute (name purposely omitted -- let's call them the "group"). During her tenure, Laurie decided that she wanted to step up her efforts for "the group," and she offered to organize a fundraiser in an attempt to raise money and awareness to lung cancer.
Much to Laurie's dismay and chagrin, the "group" turned down her offer. They told Laurie that they did not want to be associated with lung cancer, or the smoking stigma that comes with it. Upon hearing this, I immediately wished that I had the opportunity to be next to Laurie when she was snubbed -- I would have went all sorts of Al Pacino on the "group."
For the record, I do not condone smoking, and I do not disagree with the fact that lung cancer is directly correlated to smoking; not in every case, but many of them. But, after all -- cancer is cancer, right? I believe that efforts to cure cancer should be appreciated across the board; there should not be a game of favorites between its variations.
My sister-in-law, Cristie, said it perfectly by proclaiming that lung cancer is not a "sexy cancer." To keep things in context, Cristie also noted that she does not "begrudge any of the phenomenal groups who raise funds and awareness for other types of cancer," rather she thinks that "they should all be important and in our faces all the time." I could not agree more, Cristie. Well said.
Unfortunately, the reality is that people like Deborah Walsh, Laurie Carson, and the rest of the LCRF staff have a "lung" way to go until they get the resepect they deserve in their endeavor to bring lung cancer to the forefront of people's minds. I am just glad that I can help do my part with the bike trip.
Yesterday, I had a great meeting with Deborah Walsh, executive director for LCRF. After months of peppering her and her wonderful staff with countless emails and phone calls, it was nice to finally chat in person. Our discussion was very enthralling, but there is one story that Deborah shared with me that continues to bother me.
Deborah began to tell me about the history of LCRF, and its founder, Laurie Carson. Prior to starting LCRF, Laurie worked for a prominent cancer treatment institute (name purposely omitted -- let's call them the "group"). During her tenure, Laurie decided that she wanted to step up her efforts for "the group," and she offered to organize a fundraiser in an attempt to raise money and awareness to lung cancer.
Much to Laurie's dismay and chagrin, the "group" turned down her offer. They told Laurie that they did not want to be associated with lung cancer, or the smoking stigma that comes with it. Upon hearing this, I immediately wished that I had the opportunity to be next to Laurie when she was snubbed -- I would have went all sorts of Al Pacino on the "group."
For the record, I do not condone smoking, and I do not disagree with the fact that lung cancer is directly correlated to smoking; not in every case, but many of them. But, after all -- cancer is cancer, right? I believe that efforts to cure cancer should be appreciated across the board; there should not be a game of favorites between its variations.
My sister-in-law, Cristie, said it perfectly by proclaiming that lung cancer is not a "sexy cancer." To keep things in context, Cristie also noted that she does not "begrudge any of the phenomenal groups who raise funds and awareness for other types of cancer," rather she thinks that "they should all be important and in our faces all the time." I could not agree more, Cristie. Well said.
Unfortunately, the reality is that people like Deborah Walsh, Laurie Carson, and the rest of the LCRF staff have a "lung" way to go until they get the resepect they deserve in their endeavor to bring lung cancer to the forefront of people's minds. I am just glad that I can help do my part with the bike trip.
I have never thought that lung cancer was any less of a "cancer". I can't believe there is such a stigma related to this cancer. Cancer is cancer plain and simple and we all need to do our part to rid the world of evert type of cancer.
ReplyDeleteCathy