“Pink ribbon campaigns have been highly successful in rallying recognition and funding around breast cancer. But our guest thinks the cheerful image of such campaigns whitewashes realities of the disease, both in terms of statistics and patient experiences.”
April 18, 2011
Doctors Michael Greenberg, MD and Matthew Birnholz, MD interviewed me on XM Radio’s ReachMD for a series called Second Opinion Live. The hosts wanted to share my perspective about breast cancer awareness with the medical community.
The interview focused on the central question raised in Pink Ribbon Blues: Do the ends justify the means? If you’ve read the book or this blog you already know that after spending ten years researching the topic I’ve concluded that the answer to that question, at this historical moment, is no. I have argued that to understand whether the ends justify the means, one must consider ALL of the ends: the positives, the negatives, and the range of consequences, both intended and unintended.
The doctors seemed to get it. They acknowledged that pink is everywhere and asked when the shift in awareness happened. They questioned where the money actually went and saw the irony in pinkwashing products that increased cancer risk and also donated money toward “the cure.” They understood that triumphant survivorship and pink festivities could actually re-stigmatize the diagnosed and that hope is personal–not something to be mandated by society in a narrow way. Still, the doctors referred to these ideas as controversial.
It always strikes me when others use the word controversial to describe Pink Ribbon Blues. To me there is nothing controversial about looking at social problems in a systematic way, or acknowledging what works, what doesn’t, and then offering solutions. It’s just pragmatic.
The real controversy surrounding Pink Ribbon Blues has nothing to do with the research, the data, or the argument. It stems from the fact that pink ribbon culture has become so sacred in American society that sometimes it feels very risky and uncomfortable to look at the system beneath it. To do so might result in catching a glimpse of something that lacks the pink lustre we’ve grown accustomed to seeing. Looking beneath the ribbon to the industry and culture that fuels it, profits from it, and exploits it…requires exploring a pink underbelly that prevents real progress, not only for breast cancer but for every other chronic illness that has to fight for air time, research dollars, and support. It is risky to look. But it’s more risky not to.
Here’s an audio clip of “In the Pink? Examining Breast Cancer Awareness Campaigns.”
“ReachMD provides thought-provoking medical news and information to healthcare practitioners. Established to help increasingly time-constrained medical providers stay abreast of new research, treatment protocols and continuing education requirements, ReachMD delivers innovative and informative radio programming via XM Satellite Radio Channel 160 and online streaming developed by doctors for doctors.”
While Doctors Michael Greenberg, MD and Matthew Birnholz, MD seem to “get it”, apparently they don’t!!!!! Thanks, Gayle, for attempting to educate and my sincere thanks for being “controversial”.
Great interview. You covered a lot of ground in your usual articulate, rational way. It really amazes me that anything you say is still considered controversial. The folks who really believe that are still drinking the Koolaid.