What the deal with how Elizabeth Edwards is being portrayed in the reports about her husband’s philandering?
It might not seem like a big deal to other people but, I just want to yell into the television every time I hear someone refer to Elizabeth Edwards as “terminally ill”. This woman is not dying, at least any more than you or I or anyone else is dying. Edwards is still walking around smiling and talking and taking care of her children. What more does a person have to do to be considered among the ranks of those still living? Can we stop with the news reports calling this woman’s cancer “terminal”? Please? Yes, she does have cancer, but it isn’t terminal. It’s incurable. There’s a helluva difference between the two.
Oh, and would it be too much to ask for these two jerks to just shut up?
{ 14 comments }
Maybe you would like to be more specific with your information on cancer for those who are uninformed?
I guess the only thing surprising about that Limbaugh comment is that it actually took him this long to imply that the only purpose for a woman’s mouth was oral sex. What a sad, scared little man.
Oh, this one’s easy. It’s because a woman in good health who had this happen to her would just be some mouthy bitch we can laugh at, like Hillary Clinton. ‘Cancer-ridden’ means she is a Good Lady whom we can pity, because publically humiliating your wife is only problematic if she has a serious illness.
You can’t interchange “incurable” and “terminal” as they do not mean the same thing. Terminal is an accepted medical term meaning the disease/illness will most likely result in the death of the patient. Incurable just means there is no cure. Diseases/illnesses can be both incurable and terminal or they can be incurable but not terminal (ie diabetes, Hepatitis C).
Certain cancers (like the type of cancer Elizabeth Edwards has) are terminal because suffers will almost certainly die as a direct result of the disease/illness, regardless of treatment. There is a need for a term that accurately describes diseases/illnesses that result in death, terminal does that, incurable does not. So, while you may not like it personally, “terminal” is perfectly acceptable medical language that accurately describes Edwards’s illness.
She has to be made out to be the victim so that Rielle can be the big dirty whore. We love our social construction. It is the perfect Madonna/Whore dichotomy and that is why they couldn’t let it go. What I I find particularly disgusting is the way they went on and on about respecting Elizabeth while at the same time feeling free to ignore her request that the media stop talking about a private family affair. Yeah they respect her and feel sorry for as long as they can make a profit off of her.
GGrace,
You can’t interchange “incurable” and “terminal” as they do not mean the same thing.
that is exactly the point I’m making. Edwards’ cancer is incurable but not terminal.
Terminal is an accepted medical term meaning the disease/illness will most likely result in the death of the patient.
I’m afraid you’re quite wrong about this. In the medical field, “terminal” has a much different meaning from the one you are claiming. It actually refers to the state where one’s death is imminent, usually when patient is likely to die within the following six months, otherwise “incurable” is the proper description of the person’s disease state.
There is a need for a term that accurately describes diseases/illnesses that result in death, terminal does that, incurable does not. So, while you may not like it personally, “terminal” is perfectly acceptable medical language that accurately describes Edwards’s illness.
Um, no. You’re still off by a long shot. Any disease can result in death. If we used your definitions, then all diseases would be considered “terminal”. With millions of people alive and kicking who have survived cancer, it is simply not accurate to refer to it as a terminal illness.
Beth, I think I’ll do even better than that. I think I’ll write about this in a separate post. Thanks for the suggestion. After many years of dealing with cancer, I sometimes forget how much jargon discussions about it may contain.
woo! I missed your introduction post, but I just wanted to say that I’m so glad you’re writing here!
I’m afraid you’re quite wrong about this. In the medical field, “terminal” has a much different meaning from the one you are claiming. It actually refers to the state where one’s death is imminent, usually when patient is likely to die within the following six months, otherwise “incurable” is the proper description of the person’s disease state.
Sorry, Bint, but you are the one that is wrong. Where in the world are you getting that 6 month timeline? I hope you aren’t relying on Wikipedia to give you accurate information (I assume you got that from Wikipedia because that is the only place I’ve found any reference to the length of time a person might live…well there and on Answers.com which said 12 months). And, the “medical field” doesn’t use 6 month life expectancy when determining whether a patient’s disease is terminal. It has to do with the disease itself, not specific life expectancy.
Here are Taber’s Medical Dictionary definitions:
terminal illness: A final, fatal illness
terminal cancer: Widespread or advanced cancer, from which recovery is not expected.
From uslegal.com, here is the definition of Terminal Illness:
“Terminal illness is generally an active and progressive illness for which there is no cure and the prognosis is fatal…The length of life expectancy may vary from entity to entity.” (emphasis mine)
There is no reference to the length of time a person might live; just that recovery is not expected. It’s almost impossible to determine the length of time an individual person can survive with a terminal illness so the timeline is not relevent.
Any disease can result in death. If we used your definitions, then all diseases would be considered “terminal”.
Yes, any disease can result in death, but that isn’t what I said. I said results in death regardless of treatment. There is a huge distinction there. And, they aren’t my definitions (see above).
With millions of people alive and kicking who have survived cancer, it is simply not accurate to refer to it as a terminal illness.
The problem with that statement is that there isn’t one generic type of caner that everyone gets. There are numerous types of cancer all of which have different prognoses. I am specifically referring to the type Edwards has. The type and stage of cancer Edwards has is not the kind people survive. It doesn’t matter if she looks well at the moment or if she’s taking care of her children, she still has terminal cancer (and, if you knew anything about her type and stage of cancer, you’d know the life expectancy people like her is less than 10 years and more likely less than 5 years).
There are many, many, many things – too numerous to count – to get upset with Limbaugh et al about; this just isn’t one of them.
Sorry, Bint, but you are the one that is wrong. Where in the world are you getting that 6 month timeline? I hope you aren’t relying on Wikipedia to give you accurate information (I assume you got that from Wikipedia because that is the only place I’ve found any reference to the length of time a person might live…well there and on Answers.com which said 12 months).
GGrace, that’s a pretty condescending comment. Also, it’s factually incorrect.
I can’t speak for Bint, but: that is the same definition I have always heard. I’ve done a bit of activism around the issue of assisted suicide from the disability rights perspective, and at least one of the laws on the books (in Oregon) and one being proposed (in CA) define “terminal disease” as a condition that is incurable and will lead to death within six months. See, e.g., Oregon’s law; see also California’s AB 654.
This is a losing debate. The woman has cancer; she’ll die as a direct result of the cancer regardless of treatment. Lobbyist-speak aside, that’s “terminal” to most laypeople.
If someone goes out there and tries to argue, “Oh, she’s not *terminal*; she’s just going to die in a few years“, they’re going to look either supremely insensitive or bat-guano insane. It’ll seem like they’re trivializing her cancer in order to trivialize the affair – and, gee, wouldn’t Rush love *that*.
I don’t see where GGrace has been condescending or rude in any of the posts here.
Bint is wrong on this issue. “Terminal” does not imply a specified time frame in the medical community. A couple of states may have strict legal interpretations, but the medical community which I would argue are the “experts” at defining medical conditions, use the word “terminal” to describe any disease that is refractory to treatment and has a high likelihood of causing the person’s death.
Edwards has metastatic stage IV breast cancer with involvement of lymph nodes, multiple ribs, lung, and liver. According to the American Cancer Society, the 5 year survival rate for stage IV with that kind of mets is less than 12%. Therefore, there’s an 88% chance she will be dead within the next 5 years.
Its perfectly appropriate to refer to her condition as terminal. Maybe she’ll be in that small group of 15% thats still alive after 5 years, but that doesnt change the prognosis at this point in time. Anything could happen, “terminal” doesnt mean a 100% chance of death, it just means that death regardless of treatment due to the disease is extremely likely over the alternative.
One more note about legal vs medical definitions of terminal. Here’s Oregon’s definition:
(12) “Terminal disease” means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months. [1995 c.3 s.1.01; 1999 c.423 s.1]
This definition was conjured up by lawyers, not doctors. They are using a strict 6 month timeline that doctors NEVER use in clinical practice, because lawyers are uncomfortable creating new laws that dont have specific timelines in place. Therefore they slapped the 6 month thing on there while being totally clueless as to how doctors use the word to describe a patient’s condition. I dont agree with their definition and no doctor that I know uses that terminology.
I would argue that doctors, not lawyers, are the de facto authority on what “terminal” means and that the legal definitions that a few states use (like Oregon) have nothing to do with how doctors define these conditions. Having an arbitrary 6 month timeline attached makes zero sense from a medical standpoint and was only done to give judges an easier context in which to frame these difficult cases.
You all raised some interesting points and I really think they should be explored further. I wrote a post addressing them and I hope you’ll all chime in with your views.
Disability Culture: Defining Our Lives
Comments on this entry are closed.