Rhetorical Analysis On Why Can T We Find A Cure For Cancer

Matthew Robinson

Synthesis

Why Can’t we Find a Cure for Cancer? Fifty years ago, a president boldly said “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth” (Kennedy). Since then, we have split the atom, spliced the gene, and roamed the surface of the moon. There has been an incredible advancement in medical technology, so why can’t we find a cure for cancer? If the United States government made research less of a financial liability, establish subsidies for less wealthy cancer patients, and let independent researchers be at the helm of research, finding a cure for cancer may be within our grasp. I understand that finding a

Broder’s quote, the U.S. government doesn’t work well in the disease curing business. His metaphor using the iron lung to describe the pitfalls of having a federal directed research is interesting because he’s criticizing his own organisation. As the former head of the National Cancer Institute, it’s interesting to hear him to speak that way. He uses this quote to help the general public understand that although the government does play an important role in most things, it shouldn’t be directing research. It wasn’t the government that found penicillin, nor was it the government that found that radiation and chemotherapy help to suppress the spread of cancer tumors. This may seem contradictory to what was writing in the opening paragraph, but what I’m suggesting is that after President Obama announces that we will find a cure for cancer, he, along with the rest of the U.S. government let the private companies take

It can establish government subsidies for independent researchers who are fighting the war on cancer. It can increase the taxable deduction for people who choose to donate money to find a cure. Finally it can help make the drugs and other hospital services more affordable. The deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, Dr. Leonard Lichtenfeld asserts “cancer shows that poverty remains one of the most potent a carcinogen-rivaling tobacco and obesity-as we have ever seen.” His argument is a powerful one. He’s claiming that those with more money can potentially avoid dying or prolong their life. Lichtenfeld continues “sitting right in front of our noses is the fact that...at least 37% of cancer deaths in people between the ages of 27 and 64 could be avoided right now.” If the government helps those with less money afflicted by this awful disease, that 37% could potentially be a lot lower. Lichtenfeld is clearly a leader in his field, so his comments are valuable as a source, but alarming nevertheless. It’s startling to think that in this day in age, a cancer patient could potentially not receive the needed treatment because he can’t pay for the