"Cancer Line"—a Commentary

The "Cancer Line" programme shown on TVNZ (November 11) was in some respects an undoubted success. Television in general demands that most topics be exploited in terms of their emotional dimensions. (If you're ever interviewed by the "Close-up" team, you can be assured that your contribution will make it to air only if you manage to weep: the "Close-up" producers think the zoom lens was invented to magnify teary eyes). Not wanting to take the depressing route, "Cancer Line" determined to make cancer a real laugh, with McPhail and Gadsby and other entertainers. This probably helped keep viewer interest high.

I sat through much of it waiting to see if any mention would be made of alternative cancer treatments, and indeed, Sharon Crosbie finally did ask a radiologist about the topic. His answer was most surprising. You need everything going for you with cancer, he said, as though to imply that there's no harm in it, and it may help. He then outlined his four rules for alternative treatment: (1) Alternative treatment must to taken along with orthodox treatment;

(2) the treatment must be harmless (shades of the famous "Freireich Experimental plan"!); (3) the alternative treatment must be compatible with orthodox treatment; and (4) it ought to be inexpensive.

This advice can be seen in two ways. It can be viewed favourably if one assumes that nothing will stop cancer patients from seeking alternative treatment anyway: the advice is designed to limit damage done to the patient either medically or financially. Seen thus, it is also an encouragement to the alternativists and their supporters, at least indicating a laissez-faire attitude on the part of orthodox medicine. But there is another way to view the situation: it might be said that it is patronising in the extreme for a physician to go before the public and endorse the value of treatments which he says must be cheap and harmless, and which he knows full well—but won't admit—are worthless.

It's a familiar argument to me: "Of course that medium isn't talking to the dead, but she isn't doing anybody any harm." Serious harm can be done by false or self-deluded mediums, and you can't know in advance in every case who might be harmed. There is a similar uncertainty with regard to judgements about whether any alternative course of treatment will turn out to be harmless, either with regard to its intrinsic effects or with regard to how it might impinge on the patient's ultimate utilisation of science-based medicine. I view the advice about alternative medicine presented on "Cancer Line" as increasing the likelihood that people will be harmed and taken advantage of. Cancer patients should be free to choose treatments, but they ought to do so in the cool light of facts about the effectiveness of available treatments. I also consider the advice extremely condescending, as though the public are children who will never understand, and whose childish predilections for alternative cures must be channelled into treatments that are at worst cheap and harmless.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this issue?