TOPIC OF CANCER Obituaries routinely inform us that so-and-so has died ‘after a brave battle against cancer.’ I’m waiting for the day I get to read one that says so-and-so has died ‘after a pathetically feeble battle against cancer . . . ’ One thing I’ve come to appreciate since I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma (a cancer of the blood) two years ago is how unreal both notions are. It’s just not like that. The stress on cancer patients’ “bravery” and “courage” implies that if you can’t “conquer” your cancer, there’s something wrong with you, some weakness or flaw. If your cancer progresses rapidly, is it your fault? Does it reflect some failure of willpower? In blaming the victim, the ideology attached to cancer mirrors the bootstrap individualism of the neoliberal order, in which “failure” and “success” become the ultimate duality, dished out according to individual merit, and the poor are poor because of their own weaknesses.
And Louis Proyect, who worked at Sloane-Kettering Memorial, a leading cancer hospital, wrote on Counterpunch that hospitals are often complicit in making things worse for cancer patients. When I was working at Sloan-Kettering, I read a terrific book titled The Cancer Industry that along with The Cancer Wars is essential reading for those with a class analysis. To this day, I remember what the book said about Hubert Humphrey’s stay at Sloan-Kettering. I don’t have the book handy but these paragraphs from a 1990 review should suffice: Among the horrors stories in The Cancer Industry is the case history of Senator Hubert Humphrey, who was operated on by a team of surgeons at Memorial Sloan-Kettering on October 6, 1976. His surgeon appeared before the press and television cam131