Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
eavesdropper
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=svelte]Excellent job!
As long as you haven’t switched to oxycontin or similar. :-)[/quote]
Isn’t ocycontin used as a cancer painkiller in terminal cases??[/quote]
In terminal cancer cases in which severe pain is present, you’re more likely to find patients on morphine, fentanyl, or dilaudid (a semi-synthetic morphine). Sometimes, oxycodone is added, on an “as needed” basis, for breakthrough pain.
Oxycodone is a semi-synthetic opioid analgesic that is prescribed for moderate to moderately severe pain. It has a chemical structure very similar to that of codeine; however, many believe it to be superior to codeine in its pain-relieving effects, and it can be used by some patients who are allergic to codeine. Oxycodone is the active ingredient in a number of painrelievers, including Percocet/Percodan, Roxicet, Tylox, and Oxycontin. All of these are valued by recreational drug users.
Oxycontin is in particularly high demand because it has a very large amount of oxycodone compared to the others, which also include either aspirin or acetaminophen. A standard oxycodone dose in opioid-intolerant patients is typically 5 or 10 mg. Oxycontin, however, comes in a variety of strengths up to 160 mg. This reflects the amount of oxycodone, the difference being that the active ingredient is embedded in a chemical matrix that permits a slow, steady release of oxycodone into the bloodstream over a 12-hour period. For the chronic pain sufferer, this is a godsend: consistent pain relief with far fewer side effects, less drowsiness, and less chance of accidental overdose and respiratory depression.
Oxycontin was an immediate hit with recreational drug users because of the high oxy content. However, the matrix has to be destroyed in order to access the oxy, so abusers will crush Oxycontin tablets and either snort or inject it. For long-time opioid abusers, this did not usually create a health risk, but for new or intermittent users, the sudden influx of 80 mg or 160 mg of oxy into the bloodstream frequently causes respiratory depression and death. Oxycontin abuse came to the attention of public health and drug enforcement authorities soon after its introduction in the U.S. in 1996.
The problem, contrary to frequent editorial and public opinion, is not Oxycontin. Untreated and undertreated pain, both acute and chronic, is a major public health issue in this country, costing hundreds of billions of dollars in lost productivity, disability payments, and ineffective medications, treatments, and procedures. Most patients for whom narcotic pain relievers are prescribed never become addicted to the medications, as evidenced by hundreds of research studies. However, we are allowing the actions of substance abusers (a relatively small segment of the citizenry) to form our therapeutic drug policy. Not only is that wasteful, it’s inhuman. There are oncologists who practice in high-abuse areas who complain that they cannot prescribe adequate medication to their patients.
People state that the government should prohibit the manufacturer from making Oxycontin. The only thing that will serve to do is increase the suffering of the patients for whom the medication was designed. Those that are taking life-threatening risks with the drug to get a heroin-like high will simply find some other drug to abuse.
Participant[quote=briansd1] My dad says that it’s all about will-power and strength of character. He says that we kids are weak because we were cuddled too much and have too many emotions messing with our heads. Given that he’s 80 and in excellent health, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. [/quote]
I’d like to agree with him, Brian, but it doesn’t explain why there are addicts from all different backgrounds, including quite a few that did not include “coddling”.
However, I will agree that willpower ultimately plays a part. No matter what kind of rehab you go through or therapy you undergo, ultimately you’re going to have to get through each day of the rest of your life, no matter how stressful or painful, without taking a hit of cocaine or slug of scotch. And that isn’t going to happen until an addict fully accepts that his poison of choice is going to kill him and realizes that he wants to live more than he wants to die.
But denial is a powerful thing, and between that and the unintentional enabling of an addiction by “kind” friends and relatives, the addict can avoid that decision for years. I am shocked by what appears to be people’s ability and propensity to deny. There are alcoholics to whom I could show real-time laparoscopic pictures of their severely cirrhotic livers, and they would still deny that it was theirs.
[quote=briansd1] [quote=eavesdropper]
You know when willpower kicks in? When someone knows, without a doubt, that what they’re drinking/eating/ shooting up is going to kill them.
[/quote]My dad quit smoking and drinking pretty cold turkey without any professional help because, over the years, he watched his friends get diseased and die. [/quote]
Exactly my point. Your dad just got the message a lot sooner than most.
[quote=briansd1] My dad says that drugs and prostitution should be made legal. People do it anyway, so why fight it?[/quote]
Hear, hear!! I heartily concur.
Participant[quote=briansd1] My dad says that it’s all about will-power and strength of character. He says that we kids are weak because we were cuddled too much and have too many emotions messing with our heads. Given that he’s 80 and in excellent health, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. [/quote]
I’d like to agree with him, Brian, but it doesn’t explain why there are addicts from all different backgrounds, including quite a few that did not include “coddling”.
However, I will agree that willpower ultimately plays a part. No matter what kind of rehab you go through or therapy you undergo, ultimately you’re going to have to get through each day of the rest of your life, no matter how stressful or painful, without taking a hit of cocaine or slug of scotch. And that isn’t going to happen until an addict fully accepts that his poison of choice is going to kill him and realizes that he wants to live more than he wants to die.
But denial is a powerful thing, and between that and the unintentional enabling of an addiction by “kind” friends and relatives, the addict can avoid that decision for years. I am shocked by what appears to be people’s ability and propensity to deny. There are alcoholics to whom I could show real-time laparoscopic pictures of their severely cirrhotic livers, and they would still deny that it was theirs.
[quote=briansd1] [quote=eavesdropper]
You know when willpower kicks in? When someone knows, without a doubt, that what they’re drinking/eating/ shooting up is going to kill them.
[/quote]My dad quit smoking and drinking pretty cold turkey without any professional help because, over the years, he watched his friends get diseased and die. [/quote]
Exactly my point. Your dad just got the message a lot sooner than most.
[quote=briansd1] My dad says that drugs and prostitution should be made legal. People do it anyway, so why fight it?[/quote]
Hear, hear!! I heartily concur.
Participant[quote=briansd1] My dad says that it’s all about will-power and strength of character. He says that we kids are weak because we were cuddled too much and have too many emotions messing with our heads. Given that he’s 80 and in excellent health, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. [/quote]
I’d like to agree with him, Brian, but it doesn’t explain why there are addicts from all different backgrounds, including quite a few that did not include “coddling”.
However, I will agree that willpower ultimately plays a part. No matter what kind of rehab you go through or therapy you undergo, ultimately you’re going to have to get through each day of the rest of your life, no matter how stressful or painful, without taking a hit of cocaine or slug of scotch. And that isn’t going to happen until an addict fully accepts that his poison of choice is going to kill him and realizes that he wants to live more than he wants to die.
But denial is a powerful thing, and between that and the unintentional enabling of an addiction by “kind” friends and relatives, the addict can avoid that decision for years. I am shocked by what appears to be people’s ability and propensity to deny. There are alcoholics to whom I could show real-time laparoscopic pictures of their severely cirrhotic livers, and they would still deny that it was theirs.
[quote=briansd1] [quote=eavesdropper]
You know when willpower kicks in? When someone knows, without a doubt, that what they’re drinking/eating/ shooting up is going to kill them.
[/quote]My dad quit smoking and drinking pretty cold turkey without any professional help because, over the years, he watched his friends get diseased and die. [/quote]
Exactly my point. Your dad just got the message a lot sooner than most.
[quote=briansd1] My dad says that drugs and prostitution should be made legal. People do it anyway, so why fight it?[/quote]
Hear, hear!! I heartily concur.
Participant[quote=briansd1] My dad says that it’s all about will-power and strength of character. He says that we kids are weak because we were cuddled too much and have too many emotions messing with our heads. Given that he’s 80 and in excellent health, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. [/quote]
I’d like to agree with him, Brian, but it doesn’t explain why there are addicts from all different backgrounds, including quite a few that did not include “coddling”.
However, I will agree that willpower ultimately plays a part. No matter what kind of rehab you go through or therapy you undergo, ultimately you’re going to have to get through each day of the rest of your life, no matter how stressful or painful, without taking a hit of cocaine or slug of scotch. And that isn’t going to happen until an addict fully accepts that his poison of choice is going to kill him and realizes that he wants to live more than he wants to die.
But denial is a powerful thing, and between that and the unintentional enabling of an addiction by “kind” friends and relatives, the addict can avoid that decision for years. I am shocked by what appears to be people’s ability and propensity to deny. There are alcoholics to whom I could show real-time laparoscopic pictures of their severely cirrhotic livers, and they would still deny that it was theirs.
[quote=briansd1] [quote=eavesdropper]
You know when willpower kicks in? When someone knows, without a doubt, that what they’re drinking/eating/ shooting up is going to kill them.
[/quote]My dad quit smoking and drinking pretty cold turkey without any professional help because, over the years, he watched his friends get diseased and die. [/quote]
Exactly my point. Your dad just got the message a lot sooner than most.
[quote=briansd1] My dad says that drugs and prostitution should be made legal. People do it anyway, so why fight it?[/quote]
Hear, hear!! I heartily concur.
Participant[quote=briansd1] My dad says that it’s all about will-power and strength of character. He says that we kids are weak because we were cuddled too much and have too many emotions messing with our heads. Given that he’s 80 and in excellent health, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. [/quote]
I’d like to agree with him, Brian, but it doesn’t explain why there are addicts from all different backgrounds, including quite a few that did not include “coddling”.
However, I will agree that willpower ultimately plays a part. No matter what kind of rehab you go through or therapy you undergo, ultimately you’re going to have to get through each day of the rest of your life, no matter how stressful or painful, without taking a hit of cocaine or slug of scotch. And that isn’t going to happen until an addict fully accepts that his poison of choice is going to kill him and realizes that he wants to live more than he wants to die.
But denial is a powerful thing, and between that and the unintentional enabling of an addiction by “kind” friends and relatives, the addict can avoid that decision for years. I am shocked by what appears to be people’s ability and propensity to deny. There are alcoholics to whom I could show real-time laparoscopic pictures of their severely cirrhotic livers, and they would still deny that it was theirs.
[quote=briansd1] [quote=eavesdropper]
You know when willpower kicks in? When someone knows, without a doubt, that what they’re drinking/eating/ shooting up is going to kill them.
[/quote]My dad quit smoking and drinking pretty cold turkey without any professional help because, over the years, he watched his friends get diseased and die. [/quote]
Exactly my point. Your dad just got the message a lot sooner than most.
[quote=briansd1] My dad says that drugs and prostitution should be made legal. People do it anyway, so why fight it?[/quote]
Hear, hear!! I heartily concur.
Participant[quote=briansd1] Good test of will-power.
As I said before, my dad used to smoke opium when he was in Laos in his youth. He quit just fine and never looked back.
What about coffee addiction?
I find that those who can’t do without coffee are addicted to the stimulant.
In my opinion, any kind of addiction is bad. As a test of will-power, I’ve told some friends to do without coffee… but they can’t even do that.
It seems like human/animal nature is very prone to addiction.[/quote]
Brian, everyone who tries opiates does not become addicted to them. In fact, the great majority of patients who are prescribed opiates, including morphine, for medical conditions have no problems stopping the medication when the condition resolves. There have been an exhaustive number of studies performed that bear this out.
This doesn’t mean that your dad did not enjoy smoking opium. I’m sure the reason he went back several times was because it’s enjoyable. However, like many humans, he did not become addicted to it.
Addiction is an incredibly complex phenomenon, with both physical and psychological components inextricably bound. Like any disease or disorder, it won’t necessarily affect afflicted patients in the same way.
As for coffee, your friends (at least some of them) may experience some fairly significant headaches or other unpleasant physical symptoms when they don’t mainline coffee every day. Because they have to go to work or school or have other obligations, they do what gets them through the day. Coffee is a readily available, legal commodity, and it is socially endorsed. So where’s the incentive to give it up?
You know when willpower kicks in? When someone knows, without a doubt, that what they’re drinking/eating/ shooting up is going to kill them. Not much of a chance of that happening with coffee. So I’m recommending that you lay off them with regard to your “willpower” experiments, or they might kill you for getting between them and their Starbucks.
Participant[quote=briansd1] Good test of will-power.
As I said before, my dad used to smoke opium when he was in Laos in his youth. He quit just fine and never looked back.
What about coffee addiction?
I find that those who can’t do without coffee are addicted to the stimulant.
In my opinion, any kind of addiction is bad. As a test of will-power, I’ve told some friends to do without coffee… but they can’t even do that.
It seems like human/animal nature is very prone to addiction.[/quote]
Brian, everyone who tries opiates does not become addicted to them. In fact, the great majority of patients who are prescribed opiates, including morphine, for medical conditions have no problems stopping the medication when the condition resolves. There have been an exhaustive number of studies performed that bear this out.
This doesn’t mean that your dad did not enjoy smoking opium. I’m sure the reason he went back several times was because it’s enjoyable. However, like many humans, he did not become addicted to it.
Addiction is an incredibly complex phenomenon, with both physical and psychological components inextricably bound. Like any disease or disorder, it won’t necessarily affect afflicted patients in the same way.
As for coffee, your friends (at least some of them) may experience some fairly significant headaches or other unpleasant physical symptoms when they don’t mainline coffee every day. Because they have to go to work or school or have other obligations, they do what gets them through the day. Coffee is a readily available, legal commodity, and it is socially endorsed. So where’s the incentive to give it up?
You know when willpower kicks in? When someone knows, without a doubt, that what they’re drinking/eating/ shooting up is going to kill them. Not much of a chance of that happening with coffee. So I’m recommending that you lay off them with regard to your “willpower” experiments, or they might kill you for getting between them and their Starbucks.
Participant[quote=briansd1] Good test of will-power.
As I said before, my dad used to smoke opium when he was in Laos in his youth. He quit just fine and never looked back.
What about coffee addiction?
I find that those who can’t do without coffee are addicted to the stimulant.
In my opinion, any kind of addiction is bad. As a test of will-power, I’ve told some friends to do without coffee… but they can’t even do that.
It seems like human/animal nature is very prone to addiction.[/quote]
Brian, everyone who tries opiates does not become addicted to them. In fact, the great majority of patients who are prescribed opiates, including morphine, for medical conditions have no problems stopping the medication when the condition resolves. There have been an exhaustive number of studies performed that bear this out.
This doesn’t mean that your dad did not enjoy smoking opium. I’m sure the reason he went back several times was because it’s enjoyable. However, like many humans, he did not become addicted to it.
Addiction is an incredibly complex phenomenon, with both physical and psychological components inextricably bound. Like any disease or disorder, it won’t necessarily affect afflicted patients in the same way.
As for coffee, your friends (at least some of them) may experience some fairly significant headaches or other unpleasant physical symptoms when they don’t mainline coffee every day. Because they have to go to work or school or have other obligations, they do what gets them through the day. Coffee is a readily available, legal commodity, and it is socially endorsed. So where’s the incentive to give it up?
You know when willpower kicks in? When someone knows, without a doubt, that what they’re drinking/eating/ shooting up is going to kill them. Not much of a chance of that happening with coffee. So I’m recommending that you lay off them with regard to your “willpower” experiments, or they might kill you for getting between them and their Starbucks.
Participant[quote=briansd1] Good test of will-power.
As I said before, my dad used to smoke opium when he was in Laos in his youth. He quit just fine and never looked back.
What about coffee addiction?
I find that those who can’t do without coffee are addicted to the stimulant.
In my opinion, any kind of addiction is bad. As a test of will-power, I’ve told some friends to do without coffee… but they can’t even do that.
It seems like human/animal nature is very prone to addiction.[/quote]
Brian, everyone who tries opiates does not become addicted to them. In fact, the great majority of patients who are prescribed opiates, including morphine, for medical conditions have no problems stopping the medication when the condition resolves. There have been an exhaustive number of studies performed that bear this out.
This doesn’t mean that your dad did not enjoy smoking opium. I’m sure the reason he went back several times was because it’s enjoyable. However, like many humans, he did not become addicted to it.
Addiction is an incredibly complex phenomenon, with both physical and psychological components inextricably bound. Like any disease or disorder, it won’t necessarily affect afflicted patients in the same way.
As for coffee, your friends (at least some of them) may experience some fairly significant headaches or other unpleasant physical symptoms when they don’t mainline coffee every day. Because they have to go to work or school or have other obligations, they do what gets them through the day. Coffee is a readily available, legal commodity, and it is socially endorsed. So where’s the incentive to give it up?
You know when willpower kicks in? When someone knows, without a doubt, that what they’re drinking/eating/ shooting up is going to kill them. Not much of a chance of that happening with coffee. So I’m recommending that you lay off them with regard to your “willpower” experiments, or they might kill you for getting between them and their Starbucks.
Participant[quote=briansd1] Good test of will-power.
As I said before, my dad used to smoke opium when he was in Laos in his youth. He quit just fine and never looked back.
What about coffee addiction?
I find that those who can’t do without coffee are addicted to the stimulant.
In my opinion, any kind of addiction is bad. As a test of will-power, I’ve told some friends to do without coffee… but they can’t even do that.
It seems like human/animal nature is very prone to addiction.[/quote]
Brian, everyone who tries opiates does not become addicted to them. In fact, the great majority of patients who are prescribed opiates, including morphine, for medical conditions have no problems stopping the medication when the condition resolves. There have been an exhaustive number of studies performed that bear this out.
This doesn’t mean that your dad did not enjoy smoking opium. I’m sure the reason he went back several times was because it’s enjoyable. However, like many humans, he did not become addicted to it.
Addiction is an incredibly complex phenomenon, with both physical and psychological components inextricably bound. Like any disease or disorder, it won’t necessarily affect afflicted patients in the same way.
As for coffee, your friends (at least some of them) may experience some fairly significant headaches or other unpleasant physical symptoms when they don’t mainline coffee every day. Because they have to go to work or school or have other obligations, they do what gets them through the day. Coffee is a readily available, legal commodity, and it is socially endorsed. So where’s the incentive to give it up?
You know when willpower kicks in? When someone knows, without a doubt, that what they’re drinking/eating/ shooting up is going to kill them. Not much of a chance of that happening with coffee. So I’m recommending that you lay off them with regard to your “willpower” experiments, or they might kill you for getting between them and their Starbucks.
Participant[quote=svelte] I suspect the public at large thinks lung cancer is often caused by actions of the person, but the public doesn’t think the same thing about breast cancer.
I say this because lung cancer is actually more common than breast cancer, yet breast cancer gets all the attention via walkathons, pink ribbons, etc.
My wife worries much more about breast cancer than lung cancer, but I attribute that to her being a 38DD.[/quote]
Very astute observation, svelte. Thanks largely to highly successful public service advertising, lung cancer has become synonymous with smoking. Not only are the commercials omnipresent, but the content of many have had a shock effect on viewers. And the fact is that the epidemiological evidence is overwhelming in the indictment of smoking as a causal agent in most lung cancer cases. Unfortunately, it’s human nature for people to have less sympathy for those who they believe to be culpable in causing their own illnesses.
As for breast cancer, if there was as strong a link for some causal agent with breast ca as there is for smoking and lung cancer, you’d better believe it’d be all over the media. But the fact is there is none. Certain things have shown up in epi studies, but not in the right numbers to implicate them. Because there isn’t anything to “blame”, breast cancer advertising takes a different tack and goes for the sympathy vote. It gets people to bug their friends and mothers and sisters to get mammograms, and it also gets them to contribute.
In reality, the numbers of breast cancer cases is virtually equal to those of lung cancer (about 200K per year). However, the lung ca mortality rate is much higher. The reasons for this are complex; lung cancer is an entirely different disease on a molecular level from cancer of the breast. But would it improve if there were tons of walkathons, colored ribbons, etc.? Who knows? But there’s no question that many of the funds being raised for breast cancer are diverted to lobbying efforts, and far more taxpayer money is being spent on breast ca research than on other cancers and public health risks.
A lot of the “pinkwash” started with the Komen Foundation. At the time of it’s inception, there was almost no publicity about the disease, and relatively few research dollars were dedicated to it. Komen changed all that, and demonstrated real brilliance in their early marketing. The timing was also right, as the women of baby boomer generation were reaching an age when breast cancer was a concern, first for their mothers and later for themselves. Several copycat groups sprang up: some were wonderful, others not so much. Recently, Komen has been criticized on their use of funds and also on their seemingly indiscriminate agreements with marketing partners.
Unfortunately, other cancers and diseases, for whatever reason, didn’t get the message, and sat by idly while Komen achieved unparalleled success in fundraising. Some of them have picked up on it in the past 5 or 6 years, but I think that the public may have reached the point where they have “ribbon fatigue”.
Participant[quote=svelte] I suspect the public at large thinks lung cancer is often caused by actions of the person, but the public doesn’t think the same thing about breast cancer.
I say this because lung cancer is actually more common than breast cancer, yet breast cancer gets all the attention via walkathons, pink ribbons, etc.
My wife worries much more about breast cancer than lung cancer, but I attribute that to her being a 38DD.[/quote]
Very astute observation, svelte. Thanks largely to highly successful public service advertising, lung cancer has become synonymous with smoking. Not only are the commercials omnipresent, but the content of many have had a shock effect on viewers. And the fact is that the epidemiological evidence is overwhelming in the indictment of smoking as a causal agent in most lung cancer cases. Unfortunately, it’s human nature for people to have less sympathy for those who they believe to be culpable in causing their own illnesses.
As for breast cancer, if there was as strong a link for some causal agent with breast ca as there is for smoking and lung cancer, you’d better believe it’d be all over the media. But the fact is there is none. Certain things have shown up in epi studies, but not in the right numbers to implicate them. Because there isn’t anything to “blame”, breast cancer advertising takes a different tack and goes for the sympathy vote. It gets people to bug their friends and mothers and sisters to get mammograms, and it also gets them to contribute.
In reality, the numbers of breast cancer cases is virtually equal to those of lung cancer (about 200K per year). However, the lung ca mortality rate is much higher. The reasons for this are complex; lung cancer is an entirely different disease on a molecular level from cancer of the breast. But would it improve if there were tons of walkathons, colored ribbons, etc.? Who knows? But there’s no question that many of the funds being raised for breast cancer are diverted to lobbying efforts, and far more taxpayer money is being spent on breast ca research than on other cancers and public health risks.
A lot of the “pinkwash” started with the Komen Foundation. At the time of it’s inception, there was almost no publicity about the disease, and relatively few research dollars were dedicated to it. Komen changed all that, and demonstrated real brilliance in their early marketing. The timing was also right, as the women of baby boomer generation were reaching an age when breast cancer was a concern, first for their mothers and later for themselves. Several copycat groups sprang up: some were wonderful, others not so much. Recently, Komen has been criticized on their use of funds and also on their seemingly indiscriminate agreements with marketing partners.
Unfortunately, other cancers and diseases, for whatever reason, didn’t get the message, and sat by idly while Komen achieved unparalleled success in fundraising. Some of them have picked up on it in the past 5 or 6 years, but I think that the public may have reached the point where they have “ribbon fatigue”.
Participant[quote=svelte] I suspect the public at large thinks lung cancer is often caused by actions of the person, but the public doesn’t think the same thing about breast cancer.
I say this because lung cancer is actually more common than breast cancer, yet breast cancer gets all the attention via walkathons, pink ribbons, etc.
My wife worries much more about breast cancer than lung cancer, but I attribute that to her being a 38DD.[/quote]
Very astute observation, svelte. Thanks largely to highly successful public service advertising, lung cancer has become synonymous with smoking. Not only are the commercials omnipresent, but the content of many have had a shock effect on viewers. And the fact is that the epidemiological evidence is overwhelming in the indictment of smoking as a causal agent in most lung cancer cases. Unfortunately, it’s human nature for people to have less sympathy for those who they believe to be culpable in causing their own illnesses.
As for breast cancer, if there was as strong a link for some causal agent with breast ca as there is for smoking and lung cancer, you’d better believe it’d be all over the media. But the fact is there is none. Certain things have shown up in epi studies, but not in the right numbers to implicate them. Because there isn’t anything to “blame”, breast cancer advertising takes a different tack and goes for the sympathy vote. It gets people to bug their friends and mothers and sisters to get mammograms, and it also gets them to contribute.
In reality, the numbers of breast cancer cases is virtually equal to those of lung cancer (about 200K per year). However, the lung ca mortality rate is much higher. The reasons for this are complex; lung cancer is an entirely different disease on a molecular level from cancer of the breast. But would it improve if there were tons of walkathons, colored ribbons, etc.? Who knows? But there’s no question that many of the funds being raised for breast cancer are diverted to lobbying efforts, and far more taxpayer money is being spent on breast ca research than on other cancers and public health risks.
A lot of the “pinkwash” started with the Komen Foundation. At the time of it’s inception, there was almost no publicity about the disease, and relatively few research dollars were dedicated to it. Komen changed all that, and demonstrated real brilliance in their early marketing. The timing was also right, as the women of baby boomer generation were reaching an age when breast cancer was a concern, first for their mothers and later for themselves. Several copycat groups sprang up: some were wonderful, others not so much. Recently, Komen has been criticized on their use of funds and also on their seemingly indiscriminate agreements with marketing partners.
Unfortunately, other cancers and diseases, for whatever reason, didn’t get the message, and sat by idly while Komen achieved unparalleled success in fundraising. Some of them have picked up on it in the past 5 or 6 years, but I think that the public may have reached the point where they have “ribbon fatigue”.
-
AuthorPosts