By any measure the life expectancy of US women is significantly greater than men and has been for decades. Yet currently the NIH funds women's health research $1 Billion dollars more a YEAR than men's health research. Breast cancer research is funded more than twice that of prostate cancer each year. Men only have one very poor screening test - the PSA test and its detection rate is drastically poorer than that of breast mammography. How much greater does the difference in male-female life expectancy have to be before we stop directing nearly all of our gender specific research funds to women health issues and we start trying to increase men's life expectancy so it is comparable to that of women? I mean, throw us a bone here, please...
Both are deadly cancers.
Breast cancer is only one of many cancers, yet it is the one everyone pays attention to. No mention of prostate cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, L&L, etc., in the media, just breast cancer. It could be because of the media's love of breasts, but the breasts are only one of the many organs on the body that can get cancer.
Male BC sufferers are old, few, and far between. To be gender equal, conditions that affect only men should be the same as conditions that affect mostly women.
I love prostate. Prostate glands produce the semen that sperm swim in. We all were sperm cells in the beginning. Therefore, I love prostate, and you should too.
Nothing against people with breast cancer, but other forms of cancer should receive more light.
Few of you may know, that "no shave November," during which men throw the razors away and grow the manly beards as long as they can, was originally created in honor and celebration of prostate cancer awareness. It is just as concerning of an issue as breast cancer therefore yes it should receive just as much funding!
Their both dangerous. If we can get a cure for any of them, we should get it.
Not just for one of them..
What if the other cure is easier to find, and then when we found that, it might be easier to find eh other one, and more people could be saved at same time, instead of finding one and then afterwords finding the other one.
I would agree that more prevalent forms of cancer should receive more funding, but to turn the funding situation into a popularity contest, to me is distasteful. I would suggest looking at prevalence of different types of cancer (e.G: http://www.Cancerresearchuk.Org/cancer-info/cancerstats/incidence/commoncancers/#Twenty) and formulating budget distribution accordingly. Even from the chart via the link we can see that both these types of cancer are the most common for males and females respectively, so to give preference to one over the other (regardless of funding for less common varieties) flies in the face of our supposed culture of gender equality.
It doesn't depend on which cancer it is, it it depends on that both can be deadly and that's why both should get the equal amount of money, interest and research! Which is only fair, looking at the fact that from both, there is an equal chance to get prostate or breast cancer!
Under the banner of equal rights for both men and women, we should apportion the same funding to research for diseases that affect men & women. These diseases kill women in the case of breast cancer and men in the case of prostate cancer, so it is the only humane thing to do to provide equal chances that both men & women survive from these types of cancers.
In my opinion prostate cancer is a huge money maker for surgeons, radiologist and drug companies. I think there are few men with prostate cancer will die from this cancer. Breast cancer is well documented as a cancer if left untreated a person will die. This is NOT true with prostate cancer. You cannot compare apples to oranges. There is no debate on treating breast cancer as with prostate cancer. Treating prostate cancer ruins more lives unnecessarily. Has PSA screening saved lives? Mammograms have.