Health care, and an attack on cancer, promise to be highly debated issues in the 2008 Presidential Election.  Though early in the specifics, candidates are beginning to present their strategies to change our current situation. We posed campaign questions  #1, #2 and #3 for the candidates last week.

Defining The Situation:

As we stated before, we are currently spending more on health care than any other country on the planet, but fail to make the top 40 in life expectancy

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States.  And, unlike heart disease and pneumonia, for which the age-adjusted mortality has been cut in half, (the mortality for strokes has been quartered), the overall mortality from cancer has remained stable.  Shocked!  Most people are if they read the papers.  Yes, our latest statistics showed around 2,000 fewer deaths in cancer than the year before (a small reduction considering almost 600,000 people die from cancer each year).  Even more surprising was the great media celebration a year ago when we found that cancer deaths dropped for the first time in over half a century.  Every news channel and paper celebrated the statistics.  Perhaps for men they could rejoice.  Cancer deaths dropped by roughly 400 that year.  For women, the celebration should have been time for a pitty party.  Cancer deaths dropped by 700 for men, but increased by 300 for women! 

From these statistics it is clear we have not found the "miracle cure".  If we are going to entertain the candidates claim to a reduce the death rate from cancer, we have to ask them many questions about prevention.  While we wait for the cure, we know that perhaps 70 percent of cancer could be prevented in the first place.

Our Question For The Candidates:  What Are Their Plans For Cancer Prevention?

More definitions are needed to ask to right questions.

Secondary Prevention - is the practice of screening for disease.  Otherwise known as early detection.  Examples include mammograms, PSA's etc.

Primary Prevention - is the practice of preventing disease in the first place.  With regards to cancer, the National Cancer Institute defines this as
- avoiding a carcinogen or altering its metabolism
- pursuing lifestyle or dietary practices that modify cancer-causing factors or genetic predispositions.

Secondary prevention is commendable, and we applaud the candidates looking for ways to have this available to Americans, but inherent in the definition is early detection of cancers already present.  Costly treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy and radiation may still be needed. As we sadly see with Elizabeth Edward's breast cancer, early detection and excellent health insurance are sometimes not enough. If we want to lower the incidence of cancer, we need to address primary prevention.

So, what are the candidates proposing for the Primary Prevention of Cancer? 

We welcome suggestions for ideas, topics that should be addressed by candidates truly interested in the war on cancer, and will be writing on these over the next several weeks.

For information on the primary prevention of cancer, and issues that could make a difference in the incidence of cancer, visit www.avoidcancernow.com, or read a comprehensive approach to what could truly make a difference, in Avoiding Cancer One Day At A Time: Practical Advice for Preventing Cancer.