'Obama's tweet to John McCain about his diagnosis was the last thing cancer survivors wanted to see
Our unthinking characterisation of cancer as a 'battle' hands responsibility for recovery to the patient – and creates the notion that only the ‘strong’ or ‘deserving’ survive
Glancing through Twitter this morning, I noticed a friend of a friend responding to Barack Obama’s tweet in support of Senator John McCain who has been diagnosed with brain cancer: “John McCain is an American hero & one of the bravest fighters I've ever known. Cancer doesn‘t know what it's up against. Give it hell, John.”
As sad as this news is, and as much as I laud Obama’s sentiments, I have to take issue with his use of war metaphor to frame a response to his colleague’s illness. For starters, talk of cancer as a “fight” is nearly always used to reassure the speaker rather than addressing the emotional and physical reality of the person who is ill. Without wishing to overstate it, the tweet has a lofty, imperious tone to it, as though spoken by someone who is used to getting their own way. Even after successful treatment, if cancer teaches you anything, it is that this rarely happens. Our will to “fight” the disease is irrelevant to whether or how we get better.
Martial metaphors of cancer are lacking for several other reasons. After major surgery, weeks of radiotherapy, or even a single day on a chemotherapy ward, it is possible to feel that the so-called “battle” is being done to you, not that you are some brave warrior choosing to repel the evil forces of the disease inside your body.
The advances of medical science are a wonderful thing, but that does not change the fact that many treatments for cancer, sometimes involving all of the above treatments combined, can be brutal. If I were diagnosed with a relapse tomorrow I would ask for the same treatment again, but a decision to “fight” would not come into it.
Thirdly, and most insidiously, our unthinking characterisation of cancer as a “battle” hands responsibility for recovery to the patient. As we have seen, when you are at your lowest ebb, this is a laughable proposition. Further, it creates the notion that only “strong” or “deserving” patients survive cancer, the corollary of which is that those whose treatment is unsuccessful are weak or deficient in willpower. This is dangerous. We don’t talk about “fighting” a hip replacement, or diabetes. Why should we when it comes to cancer?
Finally, the idea of cancer as a “battle” sentimentalises the disease, when there is absolutely nothing romantic about it. Think back to any number of disclosures of celebrities “fighting” or, sadly, dying from cancer. If their treatment is ongoing, they are called “brave”, as in “Brave X’s new cancer haircut”, as though losing one’s hair were a fashion choice. The story is greeted with exactly the same word even when the news is less positive: “Brave X loses year-long cancer battle”. Again, this says more about us as onlookers than the individual concerned. It is as though we need the comfort of persuading ourselves that the deceased has “given it everything”, or was ‘plucky” to the end.
My friend of a friend on Twitter was commendably direct in her reply to the former US President: “Urge us to be courageous; tell us you'll support us; acknowledge that it's shit & you don't know what to do. Just don't tell us to fight.” Unfortunately this kind of clarity is sadly lacking in much of our culture’s discourse around cancer. Consider Cancer Research UK’s Race for Life TV ad(2013), which includes the immortally dreadful line “Cancer, you prat.” The seriousness of the delivery, let alone the subject matter, almost dares you not to laugh. Surely we can do better.
I have no doubt that Obama meant well with his tweet. With its overtones of taking control and a positive mindset, it is the kind of statement our culture responds well to. It may even have been a comfort to John McCain and his family. But none of this stops it being misplaced, or founded on a myth that only those who “fight” cancer survive it.
Whatever our relationship to cancer, whether we are a researcher, doctor, patient, or family member, refusing to use war metaphors to describe our experience of it would be a better way to honour those we support and love. '
Anthony Wilson is a poet, writing tutor, blogger and Senior Lecturer at the Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter. His most recent books are Lifesaving Poems (Bloodaxe, 2015), Riddance (Worple Press, 2012) and Love for Now (Impress Books, 2012), a memoir of cancer. You can visit his website: www.anthonywilsonpoetry.com or Twitter: @awilsonpoet
“If there is righteousness in the heart, there will be beauty in the character. If there is beauty in the character, there will be harmony in the home. If there is harmony in the home, there will be order in the nations. When there is order in the nations, there will peace in the world.”
Firefighters spray water on the fire raging in the Grenfell Tower.Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA
A lack of suitable equipment, low water pressure and radio problems hindered the response to the Grenfell Tower disaster, firefighters who attended the scene have said.
Some of those present told a BBC Newsnight investigation that they had struggled to get through on their radios with vital messages because of an overuse of the system, as well as the difficulty of getting a signal through several floors of concrete.
According to the programme, a 30-metre-high “aerial ladder” did not arrive at the scene until more than half an hour after the first fire engines were dispatched.
Two hundred firefighters responded using 40 engines and a range of specialist vehicles to the fire in west London that killed at least 80 people.
Newsnight journalists obtained a copy of the “incident mobilisation list” that lists all the fire crews called to the scene from across London by time of arrival, as well as the equipment brought in. It said 200 firefighters responded with 40 engines and a range of specialist vehicles,
The document reportedly states that the aerial ladder was not dispatched until 1.19am, 24 minutes after the first crews were sent to fight the fridge fire that started the blaze. Although the ladder could reach the 10th floor, by 1.32pm when it arrived, the fire had reportedly travelled further up the 70-metre high building.
The general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, Matt Wrack, said he had spoken “to aerial appliance operators in London ... who attended that incident, who think that having that on the first attendance might have made a difference”.
On 22 June, just days after the fire, the London Fire Brigade (LFB) introduced a change so that any pre-determined response to a high-rise building fire was increased from four fire engines to five fire engines and one aerial appliance.
The tallest aerial tower in the country, which is 70-metres high, is based in Surrey and did not arrive until the fire had been burning for several hours. Commissioner Dany Cottonhas already said the LFB is considering buying taller aerial platforms.
Former chief fire officer Ronnie King defended the LFB, telling Newsnight: “Not many people, if any, in this country have seen a fire in a block of flats full of people asleep. I don’t think anybody could have contingency planned for that, our buildings should be safe.
“All the firefighting operations are predicated on firefighters fighting from the inside not the outside. Obviously it would be excellent to have an aerial platform but in reality they would be standing idle for long periods.”
Newsnight’s investigation also reported that the fire service had to call Thames Water to ask the company to increase pressure in the area after firefighters struggled to battle the extremely high temperatures and strong flames.
One firefighter told the programme: “The fire floors we went in were helmet-meltingly hot … when we were clearing flats, it was a case of a quick look and closing doors because the water pressure wasn’t up to firefighting.”
A Thames Water spokesman denied the charge, saying: “Any suggestion there was low pressure or that Thames Water did not supply enough water to fire services during this appalling tragedy is categorically false.”
A London Fire Brigade spokesperson told the Guardian that the organisation would not be commenting on any of the claims made in the Newsnight film because of the ongoing official inquiry and police investigations into the fire.
They said in a statement they said: “Due to the police investigation and public inquiry it would be wrong for the brigade or its employees to comment on this level of detail at this time.”
The official judge-led inquiry into the fire is due to start hearing evidence in September. '
Harriet Grant,The Guardian 6 hours ago https://uk.yahoo.com/news/lack-equipment-low-water-pressure-000302111.html
