This argument appears to revolve around a very unconventional definition of the word "cure". It may be technically correct inside the oncology community or related affinity / fundraising industry group to use an alternative definition, but the original debate was about insiders using the word "cure" with the general public, where its probably vital to use the general public's definition as opposed to made up definitions. That said, I typed "definition of cure" into google and the response humorously was the exact opposite of the claimed definition, "Verb Relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition" solely focused around relieving symptoms, not total scientific analysis of the entire situation or root cause analysis or any of that much more complicated stuff.
Its OK to have a near religious belief in unusual definitions; its just useless when trying to talk to the general public, especially if they operate under the logical opposite of your personal definition. I believe this is a "Startup Lesson". Redefine words for yourself and folks in your affinity group all you want, but trying it with the general public is likely not to work very well.
For example of what the general public defines as a cure, examine the 1850-whatever cholera outbreak in London. The prevailing theory of "bad air" was pretty much blown away when statistical analysis pointed to one particular water well, which had its handle removed. That outbreak of cholera was successfully cured, without understanding much other than it had nothing to do with air and apparently revolved around the use of one particular water well.
This argument appears to revolve around a very unconventional definition of the word "cure".
It's not at all unconventional -- in fact, it is the most common definition, and cancer doesn't meet it, which is why medical ethicists insist on "remission".
The point is that, given the public's common understanding of the word "cure", i.e. that after treatment a particular disease has been eradicated, cancer cannot be cured, only placed in remission.
That outbreak of cholera was successfully cured ...
Now you're desperately trying to inject this word into sentences where it has no place. The cholera outbreak was stopped, but the problem of identifying the cause remained, just as with cancer. Therefore, no cure -- it's the wrong word.
Another example would be to respond to a Plague outbreak by moving to the country, as Newton did. Is that a cure? Of course not -- it's a survival strategy, but it has no depth or insight.
Remember that Semmelweiss was unable to get doctors to wash their hands, even though he had excellent statistical support for his suggestion, because he couldn't explain why his suggestion worked.
Its OK to have a near religious belief in unusual definitions; its just useless when trying to talk to the general public, especially if they operate under the logical opposite of your personal definition.
Thank you for making the exact point I have been trying to make, to wit: in fairness we must pay attention to the public's understanding of this quotidian term. Most diseases that have treatments in modern medicine, also have cures. Cancer doesn't. To claim otherwise is to violate medical ethics.
Comments
This argument appears to revolve around a very unconventional definition of the word "cure". It may be technically correct inside the oncology community or related affinity / fundraising industry group to use an alternative definition, but the original debate was about insiders using the word "cure" with the general public, where its probably vital to use the general public's definition as opposed to made up definitions. That said, I typed "definition of cure" into google and the response humorously was the exact opposite of the claimed definition, "Verb Relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition" solely focused around relieving symptoms, not total scientific analysis of the entire situation or root cause analysis or any of that much more complicated stuff.
Its OK to have a near religious belief in unusual definitions; its just useless when trying to talk to the general public, especially if they operate under the logical opposite of your personal definition. I believe this is a "Startup Lesson". Redefine words for yourself and folks in your affinity group all you want, but trying it with the general public is likely not to work very well.
For example of what the general public defines as a cure, examine the 1850-whatever cholera outbreak in London. The prevailing theory of "bad air" was pretty much blown away when statistical analysis pointed to one particular water well, which had its handle removed. That outbreak of cholera was successfully cured, without understanding much other than it had nothing to do with air and apparently revolved around the use of one particular water well.
It's not at all unconventional -- in fact, it is the most common definition, and cancer doesn't meet it, which is why medical ethicists insist on "remission".
The point is that, given the public's common understanding of the word "cure", i.e. that after treatment a particular disease has been eradicated, cancer cannot be cured, only placed in remission.
Now you're desperately trying to inject this word into sentences where it has no place. The cholera outbreak was stopped, but the problem of identifying the cause remained, just as with cancer. Therefore, no cure -- it's the wrong word.
Another example would be to respond to a Plague outbreak by moving to the country, as Newton did. Is that a cure? Of course not -- it's a survival strategy, but it has no depth or insight.
Remember that Semmelweiss was unable to get doctors to wash their hands, even though he had excellent statistical support for his suggestion, because he couldn't explain why his suggestion worked.
Thank you for making the exact point I have been trying to make, to wit: in fairness we must pay attention to the public's understanding of this quotidian term. Most diseases that have treatments in modern medicine, also have cures. Cancer doesn't. To claim otherwise is to violate medical ethics.