"Courageous" battles

[Indy]

I would like your opinion on a subject that is, well, a little touchy and perhaps impossible to broach with people it affects. Please tell me if you feel as I do, or if you think I am an A double-s (thus confirming my wife's opinion :D).

I know this person who has beaten cancer twice. Both times she was given months to live, stages 3-c or 4, and it was a very aggressive type. So among those who know her, much is made of her courageous battle with the disease, and much admiration is given over her will to survive, etc. Essentially, if you listened to people talk about her, she is a saint.

The problem is, she is not a saint. In fact, before she had cancer my opinion of her was pretty low. She was shallow, greedy, petty, self-absorbed and just generally not a very admirable person. And now, in my opinion, her personality has not changed, but she has, in an odd sort of way, been gifted with the ultimate trump card that allows her self-absorption to be seen as some sort of epic struggle.

What made me think of this, of course, is Lance Armstrong. It is shocking how many in the media choose to portray him as a victim, and I think if it weren't for the cancer, attitudes would be very different. If you read about what he actually did, he was, to put it lightly, a very, very corrupt bully who placed his own glory above all else, including the lives of those around him.

So am I wrong to not give in to idolizing our acquaintance who fought the cancer? Is there an underlying principle I am missing that makes her special and above the rest of us for, in essence, trying to save herself? Don't we all die somehow? Wouldn't we all fight the disease if we could, to save ourselves? And why is the choice of the fighter "courageous" if it is nothing more than the survival instinct in action. Maybe in some circumstances some who surrender to the illness show more courage then those who fight.

So tell me what you think.

[stroker]

I would like your opinion on a subject that is, well, a little touchy and perhaps impossible to broach with people it affects. Please tell me if you feel as I do, or if you think I am an A double-s (thus confirming my wife's opinion :D).

I know this person who has beaten cancer twice. Both times she was given months to live, stages 3-c or 4, and it was a very aggressive type. So among those who know her, much is made of her courageous battle with the disease, and much admiration is given over her will to survive, etc. Essentially, if you listened to people talk about her, she is a saint.

The problem is, she is not a saint. In fact, before she had cancer my opinion of her was pretty low. She was shallow, greedy, petty, self-absorbed and just generally not a very admirable person. And now, in my opinion, her personality has not changed, but she has, in an odd sort of way, been gifted with the ultimate trump card that allows her self-absorption to be seen as some sort of epic struggle.

What made me think of this, of course, is Lance Armstrong. It is shocking how many in the media choose to portray him as a victim, and I think if it weren't for the cancer, attitudes would be very different. If you read about what he actually did, he was, to put it lightly, a very, very corrupt bully who placed his own glory above all else, including the lives of those around him.

So am I wrong to not give in to idolizing our acquaintance who fought the cancer? Is there an underlying principle I am missing that makes her special and above the rest of us for, in essence, trying to save herself? Don't we all die somehow? Wouldn't we all fight the disease if we could, to save ourselves? And why is the choice of the fighter "courageous" if it is nothing more than the survival instinct in action. Maybe in some circumstances some who surrender to the illness show more courage then those who fight.

So tell me what you think.

You're annoyed she's getting credit for beating cancer at all or you're annoyed she's getting credit for beating cancer and not getting any recognition for being a bitch? Seems to me that regardless of whether they're a dick or a saint you've got to give somebody at least some level of credit for beating a serious illness twice. As to whether they go down in history as a dick or a saint probably isn't something you can control. That'll come out in the wash, probably long after you're gone. I wouldn't worry about it unless her bitchiness is directly impacting something connected to you like your kids.

My $.02.

[gjc2]

You won’t really know if she did, in fact, “beat” cancer, she may get sick again. Unfortunately cancer is a disease that may come back in a different form long after you think it’s gone. Isn’t likely she's fighting a lifelong battle that she will eventually lose? It’s a matter of whether she lives a normal life span or dies young.

I can’t imagine that she’s such a miserable person that she “deserves” what’s happening to her.

I think you should just have compassion for her and remember in your prayers (if that’s you thing).

[Andrew Longman]

People generally get cancer for reasons that have little to do with choice or will. Some lifestyles make it more or less likely but no lifestyle makes it a sure thing one way or the other.

The same is true with recovery from cancer. Survival has a lot to do with early detection, good doctors, good insurance and luck. A willingness to act on advice (which can mean putting up with the misery of chemo and radiation and surgery) is about all the individual has under his control. That is no small thing but I am not sure it qualifies for hero status. I hope I don't have to find out myself. However, surely anyone can choose to quit fighting and die but in no way do I think that makes them losers or non-heros.

I would turn your situation around. I know more than a few people who chose to live their lives in very deliberate ways in grace. Many of them made that choice after living their lives wrecking themselves and the lives of people around them -- usually through drugs and alcohol. But they chose to get out of themselves, find humility and grace, and care for others. Some of these people were unfortunate enough to then face tremendous tragedies including fatal diagnoses.

What to me was heroic was there deliberate choice to live humble lives full of grace and service and when the worst of possible things happened they did not change their ways. They did not pick up a drug (for those who were addicts). They were grateful for what they had and what they still could give to others. The fact they were dying wasn't that important to them by comparison.

No one deserves cancer and no one really chooses it and something will kill all of us. The differences among us that matter are defined by what we can actually control and the choices we make

[Elmo T]

No one deserves cancer and no one really chooses it and something will kill all of us. The differences among us that matter are defined by what we can actually control and the choices we make

This.

And Cancer sux.

I can only equate the view of the "sinner" as this - My Dad was a cop. A true cop's cop. He had some pretty low opinions of a few locals. I went the fire route. We crossed paths with a few of the same people. My boss at the time (the Fire Marshal) said no one deserves to die or be injured in a fire. Regardless of the dirtbags they may very well be. I see cancer the same way.

[gjc2]

no one deserves to die or be injured in a fire.

Every human life is equally valuable. Sometimes it’s easy to forget.

[cameraman]

First off you don't beat cancer twice, you slowed it down the first time and perhaps you have slowed it down again in the second go around. That you are still alive is a win but there are no guarantees concerning the possibility of round three.

Cancer is what it is, screwed up chromosomes causing runaway cell division. Your personality does not matter in the chromosomal rearrangement crapshoot, you will survive or not depending on genetics, environment and treatment. All the desire to fight & live will not do you one bit of good if the diagnosis came back stage 4 pancreatic or lung cancer.

Other cancers can be fought but the success of your fight is due more to the genetic makeup of the tumor than anything else. If the yellow wrist band crew helps you keep it together during treatment, then all the more power to the folks doing the work at LiveStrong, they are extremely good at what they do. Cancer patients need support beyond chemo and if running a 5K in a pink shirt does it for you then go for it.

Surviving cancer really doesn't mean anything more about you than you were lucky. I've met a few people who have serious superiority complexes concerning their survival but they were jackasses before they ever got sick.

As for Armstrong, he's a sociopath. He is the type who will lie, cheat & steal, do whatever it takes to win in all aspects of his life. LiveStrong is a good thing, Lance isn't.

[devilmaster]

Very interesting conversation... (especially since I'm reading the chapter of doctors and altruism in SuperFreakonomics)

A kind of similar situation with the difference of choice vs. chosen, which Indy's story reminded me of.

A few years ago, I used to be good friends with one of the owners of my favorite local pub. Him and his wife were great people, were great hosts and the pub (a traditional british/celtic pub, which had alot of ex-pat regulars) was considered a 2nd home to many people.

Their son however, was a complete jackass. Loud, obnoxious, got into alot of trouble, and walked into the pub like he owned the place, pissing off staff and patrons alike but Mom and Dad didn't want to see his antics. Total silver spoon kid.

Then Mom needed a kidney. Son was compatible, and chose to give.

He grew up. Took more responsibility in his life. We (the regulars) all saw the change. We were proud of him.

Within 3 months of surgery, he was back to being his old jackass self.

I'm happy he chose to help his mom, but a jackass is a jackass...

[pfc_m_drake]

...but a jackass is a jackass...

This is kind of where I fall on the subject as well.
Lives are precious and nobody deserves cancer - I get all that.

At the same time, getting sick and recovering doesn't grant you absolution for a life of d-baggery.

[Indy]

Every human life is equally valuable.

What evidence is there of that? How about the guys who shoot little girls who stand for women's education in primitive countries? Are their lives equally as valuable as ours? As those of our children? As those of the children they shoot?

Extreme example, but does it not prove your statement untrue?

And what about other life? I have had pets I thought of as more noble than some people. Is it only human life that is valuable? Which is more valuable? And what if there are life forms far more advanced than humans? Are they more valuable than humans?

[gjc2]

What evidence is there of that?

I don't have any evidence.

[Indy]

I don't have any evidence.

I would suggest that saying all human lives are equally valuable is a meaningless statement, as normal ideas of value have nothing to do with the reality of the nature of life.

[nrc]

I'd say that human life itself has an intrinsic value. What we do with that life can either ad or subtract value from there.

As for the original question, I imagine that some of it is just the empathy that we have for those going through that kind of struggle along with sympathy for their families. It's also possible for people to have redeeming qualities that casual acquaintances may not be aware of.

Life isn't fair. Jerks strike it rich and good people suffer tragedy every day. Hopefully it evens out over time. Even if it doesn't, I don't think that worrying too much about karmic justice for the unworthy is very good for one's own position on the scales.

[Andrew Longman]

I would suggest that saying all human lives are equally valuable is a meaningless statement, as normal ideas of value have nothing to do with the reality of the nature of life.

Plenty of philosophers will argue that no person or thing has rights that are not granted and defended by those with the power to do so.

And plenty of social-biologists argue that a human trait that evolutionary pressure has developed is a sense of mutuality and cooperation and even perhaps a faith in a higher power. These traits makes for higher fertility and survival rates.

But there is still that damn occasional arsehole recessive gene. ;)

[cameraman]

But there is still that damn occasional arsehole recessive gene. ;)

The numbers seem closer to recessive epistasis to me.

[Andrew Longman]

The numbers seem closer to recessive epistasis to me.Technically, based on the numbers, you are probably correct.

Of course there are also studies that show women prefer sex with what could be described as aggressive jerks during the times of the month when they are fertile and for the rest of the month prefer sex with what would be described as decent men you would actually want to spend time with and have hanging around kids.

Go figure.

There are lots of ways jerks persist in the gene pool.

One thing that I remember my older brother being struck by when he entered the adult workforce... All those jerks and petty silliness he put up with throughout school didn't go away just because he was working in a shiny office building with a famous logo on the top. If anything, a profit motive made it worse.

And now that my parents are living in an assisted living community I find those jerks they live with still haven't grown up despite being well off and 80+ years old. Some days it seems like junior high school there.

[devilmaster]

One thing that I remember my older brother being struck by when he entered the adult workforce... All those jerks and petty silliness he put up with throughout school didn't go away just because he was working in a shiny office building with a famous logo on the top. If anything, a profit motive made it worse.

One of the reasons I walked away from a decent wage working as an autoworker was because I saw that in many ways, it was high school all over again with many (not all) of the workers. And the thought of 30 more years of high school didn't enthrall me.

[Andrew Longman]

Go figure.Disclosure...

In my case I apparently am able to be both an ass and decent guy when called upon.

Either that or I married a woman at the edge of the normal distribution.

Well of course she is exceptional.

Maybe I better just stop there. :gomer:

[Insomniac]

The responses so far are different from what I expected after reading your post. Maybe I'm reading too much into the title.

The idea that it's "courageous", someone is "brave" or really any label people give to someone who gets through something difficult is usually applied by others. (I'd be concerned if the person was self-proclaiming themselves these things though.)

It's a societal norm to treat people this way. They often are portrayed better than they were before it happened and the focus is on the good over the bad. But rest assured, if people thought it before, they likely still think it now, but very few would say it openly. Then you're the terrible person.

Just avoid them. Life is too short to be around people like that any more than you must.

[Gnam]

It's the same impulse that prevents people from speaking ill of the dead, or kicking someone when they're down, even if they deserve it.