Danoff
Premium
- 34,061
- Mile High City
@Danoff You're making a false dichotomy here... you are trying to draw comparisons between people, even though you allude to the fact that nobody would act any differently when faced with the same situation.
I'm actually trying to say the opposite, that you can't draw comparisons between people, and that has an effect on some of the language typically used in these conversations.
But someone with cancer is very likely face considerably greater hardship than they are used to or have faced in the past, and that is what I might use the word 'battle' to represent - that merely going to work or spending time playing withtheir kids is no longer an activity that they would do without giving it a second thought, and becomes something that requires considerable effort and will power to achieve. It's not about drawing comparisons between what different people would do - I can easily assert that my uncle, for example, is extremely tenacious in the face of his own disease without casting any aspersions (as you are suggesting) upon anyone else.
You can definitely recognize that someone suffering from cancer, and cancer treatment, is struggling/fighting/battling to do everyday things - like I mentioned earlier about "fighting to stay awake". I agree with you that they can be fighting harder than ever in their lives just to get out of bed in the morning. The problem arises when someone says that they're struggling, fighting, or battling to survive, to live longer, or to beat cancer (unless that person was actually researching medicines to combat it).
If you're going to describe someone as tenacious, a fighter, a tough person, a strong person, you have to do that in reference to others. Without a frame of reference those descriptions have no meaning. This is true of anything. For example, "this rock is hard"... compared to what? Other rocks? Dirt? It's a relative term. Being tough, strong, tenacious or "a fighter" is most commonly used in reference to other people - especially in these types of circumstances.
Here's what I'm on about:
![DFJHkfYUQAAA2zW.jpg](/forum/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FDFJHkfYUQAAA2zW.jpg&hash=39a88c33a0596f1276c8e4269d52d097)
We all know, and Obama knows, that this is a lie. That there's no such thing as beating cancer with toughness or bravery. If I squint, I can see it if we're talking about being tough enough to do the rehab needed after surgery, or to be in good enough physical shape going into surgery to survive it. But "cancer doesn't know what it's up against"? We all know this is just being nice. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this anything but well wishes.
But I wince at this sort of nonsense for people who have lost loved ones to cancer (or whatever really, cancer is just the example here). It's a fantasy of control, and it's done a little at the expense of those who have died from the illness.
Edit:
There's another layer to this that slipped my mind. By framing "battles" with cancer the way we do, we pretend that choosing not to undergo treatment is weak and accepts "defeat" - that it would be cowardly. In my grandfather's case at a minimum, he very likely would have lived longer if he had chosen not to undergo treatment. But how is it weak to face your death, knowing the odds, and choose quality of life for the remaining time despite the certainty of death? That's brave. Undergoing treatment that you know has incredibly long odds to keep hope alive is braver? This is part of the problem that comes from mischaracterizing these events, we trample over some very personal, very difficult decisions.
Last edited: