Undisciplinary
Undisciplinary
Good Take/Bad Take: Cheeky chat about cancer donations & ozempic jabs for the unemployed
**Below is AI generated**
Is "cheeky" the most overused word in our everyday vocabulary? We kick things off with a humorous exploration of this label being slapped on everything from muesli bars to sports drinks. As we chuckle through language missteps, we also tackle an advertisement from the Victorian Cancer Council that boldly claims "one in two is too many." This prompts a serious reflection on the effectiveness of such messaging in cancer awareness and the potential for these tactics to oversimplify complex issues.
Switching gears, we dive into the evolving landscape of breast cancer advocacy, spotlighting Andrea Smith’s push for visibility for those living with long-term metastatic breast cancer. Our conversation then takes a critical turn as we dissect a controversial UK government proposal advocating weight loss injections to reduce obesity-related unemployment. By unpacking the assumptions and socio-economic factors tied into this initiative, we raise questions about the erosion of public trust in health policies. Join us for this lively mix of humor, skepticism, and truth-seeking.
Undisciplinary - a podcast that talks across the boundaries of history, ethics, and the politics of health.
Follow us on Twitter @undisciplinary_ or email questions for "mailbag episodes" undisciplinarypod@gmail.com
Undisciplinary is recorded on the unceded lands of the Wadawurrung peoples of the Kulin Nation in Geelong and the Gadigal peoples of the Eora Nation in Sydney. We pay our respects to Elders, past and present.
Speaker 2:The concerns about an encouraging sexual promiscuity are unfounded. Just how much free help can people receive from the government After not pairing office cake to passive smoking?
Speaker 1:Okay, so welcome to a cheeky little good take back, stop it.
Speaker 2:So, for the listeners. Chris just triggered me on purpose Cheeky is the worst, it's the absolute worst. It's the absolute worst, and I was forced to rant at him when I saw a thing in the conversation about a cheeky muesli bar or sports drink. May not seem too harmful, but there are still some health risks for athletes to consider. Um, I feel like when we're calling muesli bars and sports drinks cheeky, we've uh, jumped the shark, as the Fonz may say or do um, yeah, so that could.
Speaker 1:So we're gonna have uh three good take, bad takes um. I think we just did one and that's one of them, that's, that's such a straight up bad, do you think?
Speaker 2:Yeah, there's no debate to be had.
Speaker 1:Cheeky.
Speaker 2:When can you use it? When a child speaks inappropriately to an adult, maybe?
Speaker 1:In the 1980s. In the 1980s. So a child is cheeky, but an object, is it the drink?
Speaker 2:Do you want to go?
Speaker 1:out for a cheeky little martini?
Speaker 2:Yeah, can't be doing that no, no, a cheeky midweek drink, cheeky piece of cake, I don't know, so I don't know when things. I mean. Cheeky cheeky, I think was initially about having a drink, maybe other illicit like, maybe illegal substances as well do you want to go to the toilets and have a cheeky? Um, but yeah, you know, I've never loved it, certainly. But yeah, the the the expanding it out to muesli bars has just finished me off. I'm sorry. I don't know where it came from.
Speaker 1:Yeah Well, look, I don't have a love for it. I'm not going to defend cheeky, but it probably doesn't trigger me as to why it clearly does for you as for whether a cheeky protein bar probably doesn't trigger me as it clearly does for you. As for whether a cheeky protein bar is a problem, I guess neither of us really read the article, or?
Speaker 2:I have a strong opinion about that I didn't read it for sure. Um, you know a problem. For what, though? Right, yeah, either you eat and enjoy it or don't, I don't know. Um, yeah, I guess the idea that, um, that we all ought to uh feel guilty, whether seriously guilty or kind of cheekily guilty, about certain things is just um annoying yeah, I guess, I guess it's sort of used in.
Speaker 1:You don't usually talk about like I'm going to go for a cheeky jog or have a cheeky salad or things that are conventional.
Speaker 2:No, you might have a cheeky nap.
Speaker 1:Yeah well, that's a bit lazy, jane.
Speaker 2:Yeah, true.
Speaker 1:Well, I was having a cheeky cup of coffee one morning and I looked out the window of the cafe and on the back of the telephone public telephone box there was an advertisement, and it seems that public telephones are primarily used for advertisements.
Speaker 1:And it was an advertisement from the Victorian Cancer Council and it was a bit confusing to me. Firstly because it had two men sort of I guess laughing embracing each other in ice hockey gear, and I thought that's an interesting picture to have two men in ice hockey gear, considering ice hockey is not a huge sport in Australia. But anyway, maybe it's a stock image, maybe these are two ice hockey players that are actually being represented in this advertisement, but anyway, the advertisement then had one in two is too many. And so this is the Cancer Council of Victoria.
Speaker 1:So I was drinking my coffee and I thought, oh, I wonder what this is about. It must be some particular type of cancer which sounds pretty extreme that it's one in two. And when I got out after finishing my coffee I went and had a look and in fine print, essentially like as far as the advertisement goes, in very small print, underneath these two young smiling men with big one in two is too many is the text one in two of us will be diagnosed with cancer by age 85. Diagnosed with cancer by age 85. And then there was a you know, a plea to donate money to the Victorian Cancer Council.
Speaker 2:Jane, is that a cheeky ad? It's a depressing ad, um I I think the difficult thing is because these are um fundraising ads. It feels unnecessarily misleading, um, because when you sent this to me, I was, I was the same. I was like, oh god, what is one and two young men getting? Um. Oh, by the way, steve, I've just uh, steve is a professional ice hockey player oh, so it is a real person well, probably can't be earning much as a professional ice hockey player in australia.
Speaker 2:Well, it doesn't say that he's in Australia, does it? Well, I'd like to think he was in Victoria considering it's the Victorian Cancer Council, yeah, so I do think that's really difficult because we're all so scared of cancer and we're all encouraged, I think, to be so scared of cancer because there are certain things that we can do to, I think, to be so scared of cancer because there are certain things that we can do to, I suppose, reduce our risk of some cancers. But I think that that's a bit rubbish.
Speaker 1:But going forward. I mean, it's not. Even the campaign doesn't seem to be about awareness of reducing your risk. No Like it's not like one or two people are going to get.
Speaker 2:No, I'm just speaking to the fear of cancer, essentially.
Speaker 1:This is donate some money.
Speaker 2:Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1:Because one in two by the age of 85 are going to get it.
Speaker 2:Well, that's not one of us, right?
Speaker 1:That's like one of us. Well, you know, know, to be, honest, I will be pumped if I make it to 85. So, um, you know, yeah, maybe a little bit of cancer, uh, at that stage wouldn't be the worst thing.
Speaker 2:I think if you've got cancer at 85 um, you're most likely to not die from it.
Speaker 1:Yes. So I guess there are a few things to consider in this. One is cancer, and what is cancer? I think when we first discussed, you know what are we talking about. When one and two get a cancer diagnosis, I mean that could mean something life-changing and severe, like emphysema or leukemia or or say a non-hodgkin's lymphoma, which would be something you would have for an extended period of time, or it could be something that could be a dramatic, more acute form, that um, but it could also be I don't know something that's like a skin cancer that gets chopped off and removed.
Speaker 1:And a range of other, I guess, less life-changing, life-threatening diagnoses.
Speaker 2:Related to that. I think there was a tendency, I want to say like 30 years ago, to call things cancer that hadn't previously been called cancer. So there was this development or there was the idea that there was this, a stage zero cancer of certain kinds of cancers, which um meant abnormal cells usually, but not not what we would call cancer. I think there has more recently been a move away from that. I saw a thing in the news just this week actually that um prostate cancers were. They were talking about changing the, the name of that so that most prostate cancers were not in fact categorized as cancers, and that's the sort of thing that we were talking about a bit earlier.
Speaker 2:You know, prostate cancer is very common. Um men are unlikely to die from it. Um, they might have um some and they may choose, or their doctor may choose, for them to have um unpleasant and life-changing treatments, but increasingly I believe it's one of those watch and wait type of cancers. So I wonder if certain aspects of the kind of cancer field are trying to be a bit less sweeping, maybe in those categorisations about what it is to get cancer. I think the one and two by 85 is probably a very wide net that's being cast.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I think that it um. So there's that dimension, and then also the timeline, like you know, to say to 85, and particularly to have this as smaller text um is, I would say, somewhat misleading as well, like it would be interesting to see those stats on what is it say up to age 65 and what is it between 65 and 85, you know various ways.
Speaker 1:And then I you know, and this goes beyond my expertise, but that's never stopped me from commenting on something, but I do think and it would be if anybody is listening to this who has intel or recommendations it would be great to talk with somebody about the funding models and particularly the way certain illnesses or conditions receive funding and things like cancer and certain forms of cancer do receive a lot of funding. And then also and I guess it's something I know a little bit more about but things like breast cancer, the politics of that being more focused at curative, moving away from initially grassroots feminist organizations looking at environment and toxins and chemicals, particularly around the cosmetic industry, and shifting more to empowerment messages and overcoming and a cure rather than prevention a cure rather than prevention.
Speaker 2:So, yeah, jump in there as well to give a shout out to our um brendan ex-colleague, andrea smith, who is, um, doing amazing work actually about, um, people living long term with metastatic breast cancer. So so we don't. You know, there's so much of, as you've just said, chris, so much of breast cancer is've just said, chris, so much of breast cancer is about it being cured right and being a survivor and all of that, whereas a lot of people aren't and they live with long term breast cancer and those women are pretty invisible, um, and Andrea is doing some terrific work about that, about visibility and what it is to live with breast cancer in the long term Uncurable breast cancer, I should probably say.
Speaker 1:Yeah, okay. So generally I'd say we think that this is not a great take. I'm going to say it's a bad take.
Speaker 2:And I also, you know, without being catastrophizing things further.
Speaker 1:I do worry that some of these kinds of campaigns can erode confidence and trust in these sorts of organisations, that it becomes another form of marketing, and marketing is a kind of manipulation. But yeah, maybe I wouldn't go completely there, but yeah, it does feel that way at times.
Speaker 2:Okay, so last one look at what the last one is oh, my goodness, oh yeah, okay, so this was a headline grab. I gotta say um, and I think I sent it to you chris, yep uh article on the bbc unemployed could get weight loss jabs to return to work. And I thought what, yeah?
Speaker 1:but then I read the article and I'm still, and then you still went but a bit less yes, so um, sir keith starmer here he's the prime, isn't he? Yeah, Sir Keir. How do you say his first name?
Speaker 2:Keir, don't you Keir?
Speaker 1:I don't know. We've already discussed my pronunciation of things, sir Keir Starmer. Well, so an opinion piece was first written by the Health Secretary, wes Streeting, and the opinion piece was published in the Telegraph saying and this is a quote widening waistbands are also placing significant burden on health service.
Speaker 1:And so Saker backed up the health minister or the health secretary by saying that if the NHS rolled out a Zempic jabs for obese people, then it would help the economy and the budget of the NHS, because it would mean not only that the unemployed people who have obesity, according to this article, are able to be employed so there's some kind of belief there's a connection between unemployment and obesity but also that then people who are obese wouldn't develop conditions such as type 2 diabetes, which has an economic impact, you know, according to their logic, and so that would also save the NHS money by not dealing with that, yeah, the unemployment thing is is is weird.
Speaker 2:There are some leaps being made. Let's just say, um, so at first I I assumed it was like, uh, fat people who are unemployed can't get jobs because they're being discriminated against. But then there's this thing saying that, uh, illness caused by obesity causes people to take an extra four sick days a year on average, while many others are forced out of work altogether. So it seems to be clearly, um, clearly about complication, you know, illness, I guess, caused by obesity, that are that have people on, I guess, on sickness benefits or something like that, and it's about getting those people well so that they can go back to work. I don't know, is that your reading of it, chris? The whole thing was a little bit odd.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so my sense is it's that. And again, you know I haven't read all of these different articles, but from the BBC article my sense is, yeah, that they've got some employment stats from somewhere. You know they compare. You know Chris is a beast and he takes 10 sick days a week.
Speaker 1:A week is 10 sick days a year, whereas Tommy isn't, and he only takes three sick days a year. So maybe if we give Chris this jab, then he'll get down to three sick days as well. Is this kind of sense that I get from the statistics?
Speaker 2:Yeah, except for that it's not about people who are working and take more sick days, it's about people who aren't working.
Speaker 1:Yes, so there could be, I guess yeah, a concern that the reason why they aren't working or aren't able to work is that they are obese. The work is that they are obese.
Speaker 2:But it's an interesting, like separation of people's weight and size from everything else in their lives.
Speaker 1:Yes, and also, you know just what kind of work is available. Yeah, what kind of work is available. And you know not all. You know. There's a myriad of reasons why people are unemployed and it's difficult to get employment. So this seems like not a great take. I'd say it seems like a bad take.
Speaker 2:Um, it's an interesting technocratic fix, hey? So if you, instead of it being about unemployed fat people, it might be about unemployed, uh, drug users who are, you know, who are dependent on drug use, or unemployed people who don't have somewhere to live, or whatever, like there are lots of things that could be addressed to help get people into work.
Speaker 1:Maybe rejection is just the easiest one. Well, what it is, and this is where the, the advocates of a zempic, um, as we, uh, if you go back and listen to the episode with patty thal talking about, um, the way that people who are proponents of a zempic, who are proponents of a Zempik, see it as addressing white stigma, because a huge, you know explanation as well for why some people who are fat aren't being employed is because of discrimination. There's, you know, data and research on discrimination against fat people, particularly if you're interviewing, and so interviewing for jobs, jobs, you know they that discrimination comes into effect, and so to address that stigma isn't to, um, give everyone body modifying shots. Uh, so yeah.
Speaker 1:And then there's also, as in the interview, with patty talks about the long-term effects of a zempic, in terms of being on this drug for, uh, the rest of your life, and also the excess, the, the that there's accessibility to this drug from what I've heard, people are on it and they can't get it anymore, and then it can be quite um traumatizing yeah, yeah, complicated take.
Speaker 2:I don't know. I feel like if people I mean the idea that that people who are unemployed ought to be targeted for a zen pick is odd. If there are people who are unemployed who are desperate to try a Zendpeg, fine. It depends which way the demand is going right.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah. Well, I think the other concern, particularly for governments who are, you know, I'd say, you know, whether Labor or Liberal or Tory, or Labor or Democrat or Republican, you know, no one is really looking for policies that are going to expand the so-called welfare state or unemployment benefits or anything like that, or unemployment benefits or anything like that, and so I think, in that context, these sorts of solutions are nefarious. In short, bad, bad. So that's that.
Speaker 2:They're all bad.
Speaker 1:I know, I guess we've shifted as well from whether you and I have good or bad takes to whether the take that we're discussing is good or bad.
Speaker 2:Should be right.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we should think about this. I also wonder whether we should introduce more disagreement between us.
Speaker 2:We need a new panelist. If you'd like to apply, send us an email. If you're a contrarian, we'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 1:No, we don't. The world doesn't need those people. There's a guy. People can work it out for themselves. Teaching Philosophy is a group on on facebook that I'm part of. It just sort of provides good pedagogical discussions about teaching philosophy. It's all in the title. But uh, just after the election result, um came in, a very Trump-looking-like dude basically told people that they shouldn't sort of talk about it in their classes for reasons of being you know that the classroom's a neutral place and, I think, said something like if you wouldn't have a time of victory and celebration in your class, then you shouldn't have a time of healing and reflection either. And that resulted in a lot of countertakes. Should we say so? Yeah?
Speaker 2:we don't need to. The idea of the classroom as a neutral space is an interesting one. You know it is.
Speaker 1:It is, but I was more bringing that up to talk about or ramble about. Fostering disagreement is not always necessarily a great thing, so it's okay if we have the same take. I guess is what I'm getting at.
Speaker 2:All right. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1:Thanks for allowing us to get into your cheeky ears. Yes, oh.