Welcome to Cancerland

Barbara Ehrenreich is an American feminist and political activist with a PhD in biology. She opens up this essay with detailed description of the process she had to go through to be tested for cancer. It is made clear that Ehrenreich is upset about the positive screening for cancer, even being in denial for a bit. She expresses her opinion on the methods of treatment and dreads the side effects, such as hair. Enhrenreich comments about how she has little faith in these cancer societies, wondering how much money actually goes to funding cancer research and how much goes to the products used to promote this group. She also seems to not have any hope that medical procedures will help save lives from this deadly mutation, stating that medical intervention only effects how long people bear the knowledge of having cancer for. However, Ehrenreich tries to reach out to people by saying that cancer shouldn’t define your life even if you are a “survivor”.

There are many things I don’t like about Ehrenreich’s essay. She seems to be criticizing those organizations who try to help fight cancer, specifically breast cancer. She also expresses a negative attitude toward people giving themselves the title of “survivor”. I’m not a big fan of how she responds to those who take pride in being able to live another day, especially by saying that cancer can come back at any time. I wasn’t too pleased with her opinions. Her defensive stance on women’s perspective on cancer or the look on women who have cancer seems too much for it’s own good. Everyone is scared to die, and everyone doesn’t want to have cancer, but she seems to have let herself be more defined by cancer than she thinks she is.

Response to “Welcome to Cancerland”

Barbara Ehrenreich is an editor and author for Harper’s Magazine, has written a best-selling book, and holds a Ph.D in cell biology.  Her report deals with the struggles, challenges, and anger that she must deal with when she receives the bad news that she has breast cancer.  She opens and then, for the most part, goes on to write the rest of her essay in an anecdotal form.  Relaying her own emotions and story of her battle with cancer and lack of empathy towards the many groups and people who are out there to give her just that.  She is clearly bothered by the fact that she has cancer and feels as if it is an annoyance to her and her life.  But what infuriates her even more are the numerous organizations that she feels have “capitalized” on cancer.  Ehrenreich discusses the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, Relay for Life, and the American Cancer Society all within her piece and feels as if they aren’t doing any good for cancer.  Questioning how much of the money that they raise each year actually goes to cancer research since they must keep up the demand for “pink ribbons and teddy bears.”  Additionally, she discusses how she went to one of the many websites that have been established as a sort of support group for the women and wrote out her feelings in a blog post waiting to see how people would respond.  She states that she is “angry” and discusses her “…complaints about debilitating treatments, recalcitrant insurance companies, environmental carcinogens, and, most daringly, “sappy pink ribbons”” (50).  The responses that she gets come with force and mainly rebut anything that she has said or feels.  Many of the other women feel she has a pessimistic view on her experience and needs to brighten up a little and pick her chin up.  These are exactly the type of responses that Ehrenreich was expecting to get and isn’t surprised, but that still doesn’t change her mood on the whole thing.  Near the end of her report she tells the audience that after treatment she is cancer free, but that still isn’t enough to please her.  Wondering how long it’ll be before more cancerous cells that are in hiding surface and invade her lymph nodes or bloodstream.  While attending the local Relay for Life in her town and taking part in the survivor lap she has some choice words to say regarding the whole title of being a “survivor.”  She is even so bold to go up and ask the other survivors what they think of the term that has been placed on them.  Once again she receives the responses that she expects, with a few who surprise her and actually feel similarly to how she does.  Overall, the message she is trying to get across is that it doesn’t matter whether she is cancer free or not because she is still dying and is going to die.  That none of the women who are cancer free should be celebrating in rejoice because they’re going to die to, and there’s no point in being happy about death.

Upon reading this report I became more and more perplexed and perturbed as I read it.  I couldn’t believe that someone could have such animosity for the many organizations and establishments that are out there to help people like her.  That she was upset with the fact that she had cancer and wasn’t willing to change that.  No one is ever happy that they have cancer, it’s a death sentence usually and is scary, but that doesn’t mean that you should hate on everyone else who is in the same position as you and feel as if they are living their “new” life incorrectly.  The fact that she is so pessimistic about the whole experience is what really threw me.  I couldn’t tell if it was that she is a cold, lonely person without a family or means of support and that’s why she was so bitter about the whole thing, or if she simply has a cold soul.  Being a “Debbie Downer” and taking the negative road the whole time, even when it came to the Relay for Life events and Susan G. Komen walks.  Feeling as if these people who participate aren’t doing the right thing or are acting in a foolish manner really baffled me.  I realize that there is always going to be someone who will have a sour opinion about an idea, topic, struggle, or life event, but that doesn’t mean that you should take this anger out on everyone else.  Aside from that though, Ehrenreich does use specific literary devices to convey these feelings.  Clearly ethos and pathos play a major role.  Ethos because she is often taking the road less traveled when it comes to the ethics and ways of coping with cancer.  Knowing that by doing so she will upset her reader, but not letting that phase her too much.  Pathos presents itself throughout the whole piece.  Cancer is a very emotional experience for the patient and their family, I know since both my dad and aunt had cancer.  She takes that emotion and runs with it, just not in the usual way that you would expect a survivor to.  The norm would be to come out feeling sad, lost, accomplished, changed, etc. by one’s experience with cancer, but she plays the anger, hate, and ruthless side of it.  Stating that she “will not go into that last good night with a teddy bear tucked under my arm” (53).  Showing that no matter what, when her time comes it’s not going to be in a childish or lovable way.  Additionally, she explains her story with narration, comparison, and examples, but does lack to give the definitions of certain scientific terms that she uses.