Smokers for The Cure

Mr. Fantastic (aka Reed Richards), in addition to his somewhat-lame ability to stretch his body like rubber (he had to feel a little bummed when they found out Human Torch could burst into flames and fly), is probably more importantly recognized as being the most intelligent man in the entire Marvel universe. Mind you, this is a universe that contains Bruce Banner, Tony Stark, and Charles Xavier, among others.

His intelligence is, by far, Richards' most useful talent. Over the years, he has pioneered advances in nearly every science imaginable, and he has invented, among other things, a helmet which turns his thoughts into reality (okay, only in a side-story, but it counts). He can essentially use science to do the impossible, and furthermore does it so fast he can go from raw theory to working prototypes within a single comic book. So what's his weakness?

Cancer. For all his brilliance, Reed Richards is incapable of curing cancer.

Or, for that matter, of causing any significant change for the majority of the planet. Of course, this makes perfect sense. If his inventions had an actual effect on the world as a whole, it would look a whole lot different than the one we know and love, which would distance readers from the comic and push it into the realm of science fiction.

More importantly, though, having Mr. Fantastic cure cancer would essentially trivialize the problem. Sure it might not seem like a big deal, but a guy dying of cancer is still going to be dying after he finishes reading the comic, and implying that his only hope is a man who can stretch his body into a trampoline to deflect bullets is a little heartless.

It becomes a problem, though, when he's faced with a single bald-headed, teary-eyed little girl clutching a teddy bear who just wants him to make her all better. Curing just one kid isn't going to change the world that much, but if he can save one, why not all of them?

A recent study (and you should raise your eyebrows whenever that phrase is used, but in this case its true: CBS News Segment) shows that a great disparity exists between funding for different types of cancer when calculated in dollars-per-death. Specifically, the most-funded cancers (Breast, Cervical, and Hodgkin Lymphoma) receive around 15 times as much Federal funding as the least-funded (Stomach, Lung, and Esophagus).

I suppose it would be tasteless to point out that two of the heavily-funded cancers are primarily killers of women (yes, men can get breast cancer, but are at a much lower risk for it). However, I just did, so let me be clear in saying that I in no way consider the high rate of funding these diseases receive to be a bad thing.

It is, however, a telling indicator of the importance of awareness-raising campaigns, and even more of the importance of a strong sympathetic support base. For breast cancer, its obvious: every woman is at some risk of breast cancer, so every woman should, rationally, support breast cancer research (and as for the guys, well, we've all got mothers).

But what's the support base for lung cancer? Smokers? Its essentially a competition of images: Wife & Mother of Two vs. Wrinkled Man Smoking Through a Hole in his Throat. To whom would you donate?

It all comes down to the same reason Reed Richards practically has to save that little girl: at a gut level, we automatically make judgments about which people are worth saving. But all people are people, regardless of the choices they made or their role in society, and no one deserves to die, especially not of cancer. It is the duty of the medical community to ensure an increased quality of life to sufferers of all ailments.

Sorry to get preachy and end on a serious note like that, but its bugged me for a while now. Something light, perhaps, tomorrow.

Next Time: Pythagoras vs. Neo!