This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at Nottingham chapter.
Earlier this month, the charity Pancreatic Cancer Action launched a new advertisement campaign to raise awareness of pancreatic cancer. Depicting Kerry, a young sufferer of pancreatic cancer, the
image is accompanied by the words ‘I wish I had breast cancer’, along with facts and statistics about the dangers of pancreatic cancer.
The shock tactic employed certainly made waves and there was an outcry voicing opposition to the ads, deeming them offensive and insensitive to other cancer sufferers. At the same time, there has been support for the ad in making people more aware of pancreatic cancer. The shock tactic is a widely used technique in raising awareness of such causes, but is this campaign going too far? Pancreatic cancer is the UK’s ninth most common cancer and the fifth biggest cancer killer. 8,000 people die of pancreatic cancer every year, with a shocking 3% survival rate, compared to 85% of breast cancer patients. However, the cancer rarely shows any symptoms when it is in the early stages, which means that many patients are unaware of the illness until the cancer progresses. If caught early enough for surgery to be an option, survival rates rapidly increase. Therefore, early diagnosis is extremely important in treatment – but requires awareness from patients.
In the Guardian, Ali Stunt, chief executive and founder of Pancreatic Cancer Action, writes, ‘A recent patient survey found that more than 50% of pancreatic cancer patients had never heard of the disease before their own diagnosis. We were determined to change this lack of awareness and ultimately drive earlier diagnosis, which is why we worked with Team Darwin to devise a powerful campaign.’
Opposition to the emotive campaign has drawn criticism from a number of sources, both from the public and other cancer charities. Samia al Qadhi, Chief Executive of Breast Cancer Care, said, ‘Unless you have experienced it yourself, it’s impossible to fully understand the huge challenge faced by women who wake up every day to the brutal reality of breast cancer…Breast cancer still kills 12,000 women each year and more than 30,000 are living with a terminal diagnosis. It is unhelpful to pit one cancer against another.’ Chris Askew, Chief Executive of Breakthrough Breast Cancer, echoed this sentiment. ‘We strongly dispute any message which suggests that one type of cancer is preferable to another. We believe Pancreatic Cancer Action’s recent campaign does just this. I’ve yet to meet a man or woman with breast cancer who would consider themselves in any way fortunate to have received a diagnosis.’
Harriet*, a third year student at UoN, agrees with this view. ‘While it is upsetting that the survival rate for pancreatic cancer is so low, I think it is extremely insensitive for someone to underestimate the impact of breast cancer.’ However, the essence of the campaign was to raise awareness of the cancer in an effort to promote early diagnosis and save lives. Was this achieved? Some suggest that the widespread media coverage arguably has a positive outcome. ‘I had no idea that the survival rate was so low until I saw the ads,’ says Rani*, another third year student. ‘In fact, I really didn’t even know anything about pancreatic cancer,’ she added. ‘Once people have got over the initial shock, I think they understand the point the ad is trying to make.’
Chief Executive Ali Stunt, herself a pancreatic cancer survivor, has spoken out in support of the ads. ‘Millions of people are now aware that weren’t a week ago. And they’re now becoming aware of the symptoms. We have seen in the last few days an astonishing uplift in web views and a spike in views of our symptoms page,’ she said, in an official statement from the charity. While apologising for any hurt the ad may have caused, she wants to ‘make people realise that when faced with a pancreatic cancer diagnosis and a survival rate of only three per cent, it is not unreasonable for a cancer patient to wish for a significantly better chance of staying alive’. In spite of its low survival rate, pancreatic cancer is not widely covered in news or from charities due to the fact that it is a very rare form of cancer. However, does this give the charity the right to insinuate that pancreatic cancer is more important than other types, and should therefore be more deserving of money?
Despite the negative criticisms the campaign has attracted since its launch, the charity’s message now has been clearly voiced, and the rise of people now knowing more about the illness can surely only be a positive thing. If any lives are saved as a result – would it be worth it?
*Names have been changed to maintain anonymity
Edited by Caroline Chan