Lung cancer is the second most diagnosed
type of cancer in both men and women in the United States, and is the leading cause
of cancer death. In 2011 alone, lung cancer accounted for 14 percent of all
cancer diagnoses and 27 percent of all cancer mortalities (“Basic” 2014). Cigarette smoking is the number one cause for
lung cancer, although other types of tobacco may also lead to the development
of cancer associated with the lungs. If it was not for the work of several inquisitive
and self-determined researchers, these numbers could have been even larger than
what they are now.
In late 1947, statisticians in Britain had
notified the Ministry of Health of a startling emergence of lung cancer cases
in the United Kingdom. In the past 20 years, the number people diagnosed with lung
cancer had increased by a factor of 15. This alarming trend created a dire need
for further study on a cancer that had been long overlooked. As a result, a
biostatistician named Austin Hill was assigned with devising a more systematic
study to find a more adequate explanation for the cause of lung cancer. Along
with Richard Doll, Hill focused his efforts of comparing cigarette smoking to
lung cancer, although under much scrutiny from other researchers. After a
simple case control study and a more intense longitudinal study, Doll and Hill
came to the conclusion that cigarette smoking significantly increased the
chance of developing lung cancer. (Mukherjee 2010)
These findings were released at a time
(1956) when 45 percent of the American population were smokers, the highest it
has been in its history. Since little was known about lung cancer, and cancer
in general, this terrible habit was very prevalent in the United States and
across the world. Although many were unaware of cancer statistics, the results seemed
to take an immediate effect, as a significant amount of the population took
heed of the conclusions and quit smoking. By 1965, the percentage of smokers in
America had dropped to about 42 percent. The trend has continued to drop until
even now, when only about 18.8 percent the adult population admits to using
cigarettes (“Trends” 2016).
The work of Hill and Doll proved to be
detrimental and efficacious in the prevention of lung cancer. Not only has the
amount of smokers dropped, but there has been a considerable drop in lung
cancer cases, especially in the past ten years, where a 2.4 percent decrease in
diagnosis has occurred. A cure for lung cancer has obviously not been found,
but decreasing the amount of smokers and tobacco users further could even more
improve the lung cancer rates.
References:
"Basic Information About Lung Cancer." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 14 Oct. 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2016
Mukherjee, Siddhartha. The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. New York: Scribner, 2010. Print.
"Trends in Current Cigarette Smoking Among High School Students and Adults, United States, 1965– 2014." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30 Mar. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2016
These study show fairly conclusively that smoking is linked with lung cancer. I am of the opinion that with all of the clear evidence against it, the consumption of all tobacco products should be banned. If this is not possible, I think it should at least be illegal to smoke in the presence of non-smokers who have not consented to having you smoke around them or in the presence of children. Unlike other popular vices like alcohol, smoking can harm more people than just the one consuming the cigarette. The effects of second-hand smoke are devastating, so just because you've decided to go and ruin your lungs, doesn't mean you are allowed to do the same to mine.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Jordan. Although that idea is a bit on the radical change side, it is a overall logical solution. Banning cigarettes would in an essence, destroy any chance of people getting lung cancer by means of smoking. But yet, there is this idea of one's right to do as they please to themselves, and is something that is embedded in our society. There is a battle between what is the ethical thing to do and what is the most beneficial thing to do. And almost every time, ethics win. And that is why lung cancer, primarily caused by smoking, is still actually a thing.
ReplyDelete