Did He Smoke?

Two years ago my little brother Grant, died from lung cancer. In the height of his life, he was chopped down at 37, leaving behind a loving bride and a 7 month old boy. Grant was a baby brother, spirited son, giving husband and a new dad. That's a lot!

However, when I tell people Grant's story, the first question is not, "How long has he been married, how old was he, or does he have children?" They tilt their head, and ask with a sheepish apologetic grin, "did he smoke?"

We are just too fragile as humans; we struggle with our mortality, and this question protects us from our fears. On reflection, it completely erases the innocence and life of the individual that fought with every ounce against an incredibly evil and painful disease, cancer.

Grant was diagnosed in September with small cell aggressive lung cancer. He had a lemon size, inoperable tumor in his chest, and pockets of cancer floating throughout his body. The immediate treatment was radiation and chemotherapy. Fill your body with something so toxic, that even the cancer may flee. Sounds archaic, because it is.

Very few advancements have been made in the lung cancer space in 30 years. Living in an age of innovation, I was confused. Immediately we got a hold of ALL of the labeled experts in the field. We were amazed at their lack of inventiveness or zeal. I met with the leading lung cancer organizations, and asked emphatically, why?

"Why are there so few advancements in 30 years? What makes these guys experts?" The answers were simple and terrifying. First "...they are experts because they happened to have been around when they had some advancements 20-30 years ago." Second, "...we haven't had much evolution in therapy for lung cancer, because we can't get the money due to the smoking stigma. "

Government won't fund it (lung cancer receives 1/4 the amount of funding as breast cancer, although it kills 4 TIMES more people**), companies won't fund it, foundations won't fund it, and individual donors don't fund it. Where money goes, go doctors, research, big pharma, innovation, treatment, and survivors.

I work in the world of cause related marketing, and am challenged everyday to uncover empathy and turn it into action. I recently asked a prominent celebrity actor and comedian, who lost his father to lung cancer, if lung cancer was his primary cause to support. He quickly said no, due to the reputation of lung cancer. He would love to, but can't touch it with a ten foot pole, because of it's stigma. Many celebrities feel this way and resign to joining a broad cancer collaborative, like Stand Up to Cancer, to avoid this stigma. Unfortunately this perpetuates the problem, dilutes the topic and their influence.

So, to recap, the same cancer that stole by nephew's father, and kills more people per year than all other cancers, (4X more than Breast Cancer, 5X more than Prostate Cancer) has the least amount of funding, research, and experts because it is tied to smoking. How did that happen?

We have been duped. Rather than villainizing the cancer, we have villainized the smoker. The very person that is fighting for his/her life, s/he is dying in the shadows, because we have applied blame to them. This approach has been bought and paid for by the lung associations, hospitals, non-profits, and media. The intent was pure, but the short cut had consequences.

Damn you national lung associations and cancer societies for taking the easy road. Your low hanging apple of anti-smoking campaigns is poisoned. You've won the battle against smoking and big tobacco, but lost the war against lung cancer. It's shameful that the creative agencies and PR firms that serve these institutions have followed suit, with their campaigns against big tobacco. Every now and then, they self proclaim innovative messaging when they highlight the story of a NON-smoking cancer patient. The problem is that it's still a smoking conversation, not a lung cancer conversation. Rather than challenging their massive creative and strategy teams to come up with campaigns that lift up the cancer patient, change public perception around lung cancer, and drive massive engagement, they continue to create barriers to funding and understanding.

I say this with open eyes to the present and the publics demand for authentic social change. However, I do recognize the power that anti-smoking campaigns have had on smoking populations, culture, and demand. However myopic, it's a testament to channeling the creativity and strategy of Madison Ave against big tobacco. The coveted agency tug of war between earning the pro-tobacco or anti-tobacco budgets. Regardless of origin, the smoking conversation is taken care of.

Until we address the bigger picture of lung cancer with compassion and the hard work of behavior change, this cancer is radioactive to brands, celebrities, politicians, and foundations leaving a chasm to innovation and life saving treatments. Real creative minds need to step up, defy the conventional approach and status quo of the lung charities and their agencies that have failed us, and demonize the cancer and not the cancer patient.

I guarantee that if it were not radioactive, and we could get the money, that I could build this very movement to change the face of a ruthless disease, and save lives. This leads me to believe that others could as well. Until then, start with yourself, When you hear that a loved one has lost their battle with lung cancer, NEVER ask the question, "did he smoke?"

**http://www.lungcanceralliance.org/assets/docs/media/LCA%20Funding%20Fact%20Sheet%202012.pdf