Skip to comments.Why The Federal Government Wants To Redefine The Word 'Cancer' (So they can say they reduced it)
Posted on 10/12/2013 1:36:38 PM PDT by Beave Meister
The federal government wants to reduce the number of Americans diagnosed each year with cancer. But not by better preventive care or healthier living. Instead, the government wants to redefinethe term cancer so that fewer conditions qualify as a true cancer. What does this mean for ordinary Americans and should we be concerned?
On July 29, 2013, a working group for the National Cancer Institute (the main government agency for cancer research) published a paper proposing that the term cancer be reserved for lesions with a reasonable likelihood of killing the patient if left untreated. Slower growing tumors would be called a different name such as indolent lesions of epithelial origin (IDLE). Their justification was that modern medical technology now allows doctors to detect small, slow-growing tumors that likely wouldnt be fatal. Yet once patients are told they have a cancer, many become frightened and seek unnecessary further tests, chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery. By redefining the term cancer, the National Cancer Institute hopes to reduce patient anxiety and reduce the risks and expenses associated with supposedly unnecessary medical procedures. In technical terms, the government hopes to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment of cancer.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Here’s another link to this story.
“Fantastic, I suppose we can redefine Poverty and be more prosperous as well!”
There motto: if you tell lies enough times they become the truth
This is about rationing care. The natural consequence of ObamaCare and soon to come, Single-Payer.
They have already re-defined health insurance coverage. Instead of getting health care, you just pay a tax.
Now, one way to mitigate that would be to get more doctors. Maybe help more people pay for Med School, or make a real effort to get kids to understand and enjoy biology and other sciences. You could expand the resources, get more doctors, and provide more care.
Obama made no effort to do this.
Or, you could re-invent the insurance business and give everyone a piece of paper which says "You have health insurance". And, as a bonus, you could tax the bejeezus out of everyone.
Obama decided that this idea was a real winner.
Working on that AFFORDABLE health care, fewer medical cases. Yea-ah uh er ...
That's definitely socialist codespeak for government rationing of healthcare resources.
Redefining diseases is part of the 0bama regime’s overall scheme for the Death Panels. “You don’t have cancer so you’re not entitled to treatment. Take an aspirin and go away!”
The Left with partial success has redefined Conservatism to their benefit. This isn’t a surprise as redefining facts, altering history, etc. is SOP for them. It’s a tactic they use often.
Is that sorta like when the government redefined " INFLATION " ..
after removing fuel and food from the index (?)
despite the fact that those are two of the most explosive inflationary cost increases that was in the index ?
If you can't beat it/ overcome it .., then ..
You re-define the issue
Sorta like what the meaning of "is " is (c/o Slick Willie).
Perhaps they are anticipating a sudden rise in cancer cases.
The Medical profession has redefined high blood pressure, lowered the number for a person to be called diabetic and even created new conditions. There are probably some types of slow growths that they call cancer that could be renamed.
...or a doctor shortage.
By redefining cancer it will go by a different name,therefore you won’t have Cancer because the diagnosis does not meet the needs of the diagnostic manual and you can’t get treatment even-though you may have an actual malignancy.
Don’t you just love Obamacare?/Sarcasm
What cancer rate and unemployment? Jail or kill them before it is either officially diagnosed or papers are filled
In the Soviet Union it was illegal to be unemployed... siberia was the convenient result.
Just as we’ve dumbed down the definitions of “autistic” or added some such as “ADD”.
You actually are correct. I have read about this a bit before, and certainly there are some cancers that are more dangerous than others, popularity be damned.
This really is not an awful thing. Not a conspiracy, at least not by some of the medical research.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.