Is prevention of cancer really the best cure?
Debate Rounds (3)
2. Cancer is an acceptable price to pay for the morality of waiting past puberty to reproduce which leaves the window open for the epigenetic damage to accumulate from environmental pollution sources, causing cancer.
3. Treating cancer is better than preventing it, no matter the cost of life.
About 200 Billion a year is spent on cancer research in the US http://www.tellmehowmuch.net...
While In 2010, annual medical costs associated with cancer were projected to reach $124.6 billion .
The epigenetic causes of cancer can only be mitigated through elimination of all sources of environmental pollution, or by outlawing all sexual activity with anyone who is over the age of about 15 and outlawing the adoption of children from any parents who are over the age of about 15.
Prevention of cancer would involve modifying the human body and possibly leave an individual scared for life. Where as, the best cure for cancer would be to look after yourself or get rid of it all together.
Every year more than 13,000 people die due to smoking, sun exposure, poor diet, alcohol, being overweight or lack of exercise. Research at http://www.cancer.org.au... has proved that if you live a healthy life your chance of getting cancer is highly unlikely.
In this website it has a full display of what all the cancers do and how to reduce your chance of getting it.
For example, drinking less alcohol can decrease your chance of getting mouth cancer, larynx cancer, oesophageal cancer, colorectal cancer (for men), breast cancer, pharynx cancer and liver cancer (in women). Already by seeing one change in diet has just made your chance in getting all of those cancers a lot less.
Prevention of cancer isn't the best thing, its getting rid of it, eliminating it from the world. So we, as humans, will no longer have to live with cancer around us. Prevention would be good, but riddance of cancer would be even better.
The environmental damage from smoking, sun exposure, poor diet, alcohol, being overweight or lack of exercise upon these histones and methyl groups can be passed onto the offspring of the parent, building up over generations until one day a baby is born with cancer who will not survive long enough to reproduce, ending the chain.
The longer an individual waits to reproduce, the more epigenetic damage from environmental sources is accumulated.
It is true that you can reduce the damage you accumulate by growing your own food, drinking distilled water, avoiding plastics, styrofoams, and other petroleum-based products, breathing through an air filter, avoiding going near electrical wires or other sources of EMF, wearing sunscreen whenever you go outside, and block all high-power particles by spending most of your time in a cave or underground, or you could simply shut the window for excessive damage to build up before being inherited by offspring by limiting reproduction to as near to the age of fertility as possible.
Cancer is the product of environmental pollution and simply waiting to reproduce, allowing epigenetic damage to compound every day, every month every year until the probability of your grandbabies having cancer becomes a certainty.
Prevention of the epigenetic damage which causes cancer would either be rolling the world back to a bronze-age level in terms of population and technologies, or simply outlawing all sexual activity with or adoptions from anybody over an age as close to puberty as possible, probably around 15.
This elimination of cancer from the world through prevention is either horrifyingly immoral or terribly regressive, and would cost the US alone 325 Billion in lost jobs in research and treatment.
Given this information, I assert that it is better to keep cancer at current levels, if not cause it to spread even more widely throughout the population for the good of our economic stability and morality.
Key epigenetic processes & links to cancer by Dr. Andy Bannister (Cambridge University) http://www.abcam.com...
Epigenetic Changes in Cancer By Manel Esteller http://www.the-scientist.com...
Highlights of the American Association for Cancer Research Special Conference on Chromatin, Chromosomes, and Cancer Epigenetics by Kris Novak, PhD http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Pro states "we should keep it as it is now". However, if we do have cancer, as it is now, then 589,000 deaths, and growing. As http://www.cancer.org... proves that 1,658,370 new cancer cases will be diagnosed.
No one likes cancer. So why 'contain it' when we are prepared to banish it. Don't you want to be free from cancer worries? “Often cancer treatments are so unpleasant that you have to brace yourself as you undergo them, but it was about being completely relaxed and really letting go," states Ms McDonald in http://newslocal.newspaperdirect.com....
In http://www.cancer.org... you will find a series of jobs relevant to cancer. There is no way that pro can say how cancer doesn't have enough jobs to go round. Let alone nurses, doctors, amulance and sergents are mainly in the buisness.
Almost every school, work place or community do multiple fundraisers to help charities in need. From new beds to research it benefits our society and brings us gether. They are fundraising to help the case, having the intention that one day, just one day, someone will eliminate cancer from our lives.
http://www.relayforlife.org.au... proves that in 2013 one cancer relay achieved a massive amount of $24,014,569 from that race. All of that money has gone to developing people with cancer or the hospitals to make it a better place for them.
There is many ways you can avoid cancer, but how about ridding it from society?
My opponent has provided several further examples of how an increase in cancer will create more jobs and stimulate the economy.
I do not believe it is in the best interest of society to reduce the population size and level of technology to that of the Bronze Age just to eliminate the environmental pollution. which causes the epigenetic damage which in turn forms cancerous cell mutations.
589,000 deaths a year are a small price to pay for morality.
Our society has already accepted that immorality is equal to or worse than physical death, in our sentencing of child molesters to life sentences for murdering innocence, as a heinous murder which persists longer than any simple shooting or stabbing.
The immorality of closing the window for inheritable epigenetic damage to accumulate would be on the level of the mass genocide of the morality of 7 billion people, making a half million look pale in comparison.
Ridding society of cancer would destroy the economy and murder the morality of billions.
Overall, I can conclude that the best cure for cancer is certainly to rid of it. As well as murder and theft, cancer is unacceptable. Cancer is and will be despised for all of its reaming years. The loss of family, friends and aquanaut's can be stopped by simply exterminating cancer.
Pro has said how that murderous are far worse than cancers. Once people stop killing, then other diseases will wipe out our economy. With a growing population and global warming, cancer is one of the deadliest deaths.
Cancer is bad- 7.4 million deaths due to heart disease bad, 2.9 million deaths due to lung diseases bad, 1.6 million deaths due to lung cancers, etc.
Cancer affects all of us, whether you're a daughter, mother, sister, friend, co worker, doctor, patient.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.