tough call
Have you ever seen or heard things that your first reaction to was “that just doesn’t make sense”? Who made that call? Why did they think that was ok?
I have a prime example. Who knows where I saw grown men in a highly charged public setting wearing uniforms accented in pink, wearing pink shoes, pink hats or pink gloves? NFL players wearing pink for a cause? Or Komen for a Cure bringing in the big bucks? This is commercialization of a human condition, no different than the prized commercial slots and competition of the Super Bowl. It is such an easy band wagon to jump on and ride along with little thought to the underlying activities that support this machine. It strikes me as totally ridiculous.
But, its a tough call. Obviously, many others find it perfectly suitable.
Isn’t it nice when men are “taking a stand” on issues. That is commendable. Or is it? Are they motivated by altruism or easyism or confusionism or commercialism? Let me assure you, I have first hand experience of the “cause” and can report to you in confidence that this is a “tough call”, but if we look at it squarely, we should see where someone is not “playing by the rules”. A FLAG should be thrown on these plays!!!!
Breast Cancer- touches many lives. We all have family, friends or neighbors who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. The Susan B. Komen Foundation was created in 1982 by her surviving sister. In 2007, the pink ribbon logo was formed and in 2009, the same sister, Nancy Brinker was named the CEO of Komen. According to an annual brand equity poll, Komen is one of the most trusted non-profit organizations in America.However, the organization has been criticized for its use of donor funds, as well as its choice of sponsor affiliations and its role in commercial cause marketing, and its use of misleading statistics in advertising.
Critics within the philanthropic and research communities in particular have raised questions over its scientific approach to some issues and how it spends the money it raises. For example, Komen is still supporting indiscriminate mass universal screening mammography and breast self examination when evidence is in that these are not effective and may actually harm women. A more balanced approach is medical consumerism where individual women talk with their doctors about their personal cases and work together to decrease their risks.
Komen’s financial statements since 2003 reveal how much the group known for its pink ribbon symbol spends on activities from research to education, screenings, treatment and fund-raising.In 2011, the foundation spent 15 percent, or $63 million, of its donations on research awards that fund studies on everything from hard-core molecular biology to the quality of breast-cancer care for Medicaid patients. Komen reports spending a total of $685 million for research in the past 30 years, a considerable sum in private cancer philanthropy, and its money goes to a wide variety of initiatives. The organization’s 2011 financial statement reports that 43 percent of donations were spent on education, 18 percent on fund-raising and administration, 15 percent on research awards and grants, 12 percent on screening and 5 percent on treatment. (Various other items accounted for the rest.) This is the take home for everyone. If anyone really wants to “find a cure”, they MUST invest in valid cutting edge research and they must invest with their whole heart and pocketbook. That’s what the “survivors and runners” who show up for events are doing. Many of them are disturbed to find out how little of their funds go to research, the touted use of dollars raised…”finding a cure”.
Komen has not explained the declining share of revenue that went to research in the past few years. In that period, Komen saw its annual revenue rise by almost $100 million to $420 million and increased its spending on education. Education or Marketing? Education or fund-raising? Education or self-branding? Think about this, for one minue. If Komen spent $685 Million for RESEARCH in 30 years, while taking in $420 Million in one year…what is wrong with this picture?
Because Komen has garnered significant public attention and revenue—largely due to political affiliations and corporate relationships—it sets the stage and holds the purse for breast cancer related activities, awareness messages, fundraising strategies, research, and public policy. So, does anyone have any idea why my favorite football players are out on that field wearing pink? ESPN listed the highest paid NFL players for 2012.
NFL’s Highest Contract Values Per Season
| Position | Player | Team | Salary |
|---|---|---|---|
| QB | Drew Brees | Saints | $20 million |
| QB | Peyton Manning | Broncos | $19.2 million |
| QB | Tom Brady | Patriots | $18 million |
| DE | Mario Williams | Bills | $16.7 million |
| Source: ESPN Stats and Info | |||
Does anyone have any idea how much money is spent on buying new uniforms and who may be providing the new line of merchandise?
If the NFL partnered with reputable physicians and medical researchers throughout the country at NIH, Johns Hopkins, Cancer Treatment Centers, MD Anderson and multiple others, they could easily donate 1/30 of $685 million = ~~ 23 million annually to support research. However, would they get the public bang for their buck that wearing pink does?
Would it be that difficult to trust a lead doctor? What about an outspoken physician to lead the charge? What about Dr. Peter Pronovost at Hopkins? He has singlehandedly changed the way hospitals protect the patients they serve because he was dedicated to finding ways to make hospitals and healthcare safer for patients. Surely, there is a leader who will dedicate himself to finding ways to prevent and cure breast cancer. We could use one! I am sure Dr. Pronovost could help us locate him.
In 30 years, there has been very little change in research, treatments or final outcomes for breast cancer patients. It was only in the last few years that medical practice had sufficient research to support discontinuing axillary node dissection for any positive sentinel nodes. This was a practice that impacted functional use of the affected arm and activities of daily life. If more money was going to research, we could find out more about micowave heat treatments to the tumor site and provide intraoperative radiation to the affected tumor bed in every hospital. As it stands, hospitals are “for profit” and “not for profits” who cannot invest in the research and will not invest in the technology without said research and reimbursment that comes with “FDA” approval.
Do you know why Dr. Pronovost was so successful in making a difference in saving patient’s lives? He saw things and said, “how can this be”? It just doesn’t make sense. We are all working hard and doing things, but they are not based on science and they are not delivered consistently. This takes everyone, doing the right thing, everytime.
Dr. Pronovost has developed a scientifically proven method for reducing the deadly infections associated with central line catheters. His simple but effective checklist protocol virtually eliminated these infections across the state of Michigan, saving 1,500 lives and $100 million annually. These results have been sustained for more than three years. Moreover, the checklist protocol is now being implemented across the United States, state by state, and in several other countries. The New Yorker magazine says that Dr. Pronovost’s “work has already saved more lives than that of any laboratory scientist in the past decade.” Pronovost describes his work to improve patient safety in his book, Safe Patients, Smart Hospitals: How One Doctor’s Checklist Can Help Us Change Health Care from the Inside Out.
Think about this. He started on the inside. That’s where change must occur. Research is guided by funding. If we fund “same old, same old”, that’s what we get. Since 2001, we have been aware of the molecular understanding of cancer, which means both good news and bad news for improving treatment.
The good news is that more cures should be possible, with less waste from giving the wrong patients drugs that won’t work in their particular cases. That potentially could save money and significantly reduce suffering.Matching patients with drugs in Phase I trials, which test brand new drugs for safety and dosage rather than efficacy, are usually in a bad place. Their cancers are advanced, and they’ve already had lots of treatments. In short, they’re dying. They’re willing to be guinea pigs on the off-chance that something new might buy them some time. Cancer breakthroughs meet market realities. How can we speed up this process so everyone has an opportunity to receive a tailored drug for their specific tumor at the cellular level? This is where the human spirit and sensibility must direct our actions.We should already be there. We are not, yet.
Let’s fund innovative, new approaches that may come down to a simple check list or a simple treatment that we have overlooked in our running too and fro, wearing little ribbons and trying to help. We should make a tough call and point out the obvious. Simple. And, it could be so effective if those who want to make a difference put their resources where it could make this difference in our lifetime.
It really is commendable that most of the people who are putting themselves on the line, quite literally……..the men on the field really want to show their support for the friends and family who struggle with breast cancer. As the Ravens coach John Harbaugh said, “It’s just a way of saying – in this kind of male-dominated football kind of a world – as players and coaches, that, ‘Hey, you know what? You [women] mean everything to us’”.
In the National Football League, players are required to wear pink accessories for the first week of October, and the gloves, towels, and wristbands are optional for the remainder of the month. Most of the gear is then auctioned off to raise money for breast cancer programs. Fields are flooded with pink gear, pink ribbons, and even pink penalty flags. But all of that serves as one big dose of ambiguity, since for the average fan, the meaning of “awareness” is unclear. The NFL deserves credit for highlighting the fight against the disease but could improve clarity on what they support, how much is going to research and their mission in this campaign.
But this is not a business, this is people’s lives. This is more important than money or fame or promoting a campaign. We could see cancer eradicated, especially if the funds coming in a steady flow to all the 1400 non-profits geared to “find a cure” spent 95% of their money on research and treatments with real people who stand ready to participate. The donors have their hearts in the right place. The players have their hearts in the game and are willing to be a target or spectacle for the cause. We need to get our heads together and force a tough call on what is being done with the money!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_G._Komen_for_the_Cure
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-usa-healthcare-komen-research-idUSTRE8171KW20120208
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-31/cancer-breakthroughs-meet-market-realities.html