this is a fun one. a summary of this argument, for those of you who don’t have the time to read all 3,400 words (which are one-part argument but also one-part history of how this framing of cancer came to be and stuck):
[…]hawkish words – talk of ‘battling’, as opposed to, say, ‘coping with’ cancer – have fallen out of favour among physicians, psychologists and patient advocates. As a practising oncologist I avoided that sort of language. War metaphors seemed inapt for describing research or cancer care. And I recognised this risk: if a treatment doesn’t work, if a tumour progresses, patients who have been led to believe that they’re supposed to put up a fight against cancer may blame themselves, mistakenly thinking that they lacked sufficient strength or will, when it’s the treatment that failed.
Many doctors have objected to the use of military words in the context of illness due to the potential psychological ramifications. A person’s lack of responsiveness to cancer treatment, a relapse or death could erroneously suggest that they didn’t try hard enough, that they were ‘weak’ and somehow responsible for succumbing to their illness. A patient’s loved ones may blame them, consciously or not, if they fare poorly after a cancer diagnosis. Patients may even blame themselves.
Thanks for the TLDR and it’s a very intriguing idea.
On one hand, “battling/fighting” cancer kind of gives a kind of strength to the patient that they can possibly overcome and survive the illness, while struggling, coping etc. would not.
On the other hand, the article is right that by using that term, many patients and people around them may implicitly pin the failure to fully treat cancer as a failure of the patient themselves.
The best thing I can come up with off the top of my head is “dealing with cancer”. Terms like coping with cancer imply a weakness. Dealing seems like a neutral middle-ground to portray the strength of the patient through the ordeal while recognizing that the situation isn’t all in the patient’s control.