Media

Mar 28, 2014

Time for a brown ribbon? Data reveals the truth on cancer deaths

Can you name the two cancers which kill the most Australians? You'll probably get it wrong. Here's the truth about cancer deaths -- and the the types of disease we should be really worried about.

Cathy Alexander — Freelance journalist and PhD candidate in politics at the University of Melbourne

Cathy Alexander

Freelance journalist and PhD candidate in politics at the University of Melbourne

So you've bought a ribbon to fight breast or prostate cancer. But if you want to do the most to save lives, you should be going on a walk-a-thon for colon cancer or putting money in the tin for rectal cancer. Data released from the Australian Bureau of Statistics this week shows a clear disconnect between the types of cancers that get the media attention and donations -- breast, prostate, skin -- and the cancers that are killing the most Australians. The ABS looks at the causes of death for 2012, a year in which 147,000 Australians died. Here are the top 10 causes (with the cancers in bold):
  1. Heart disease (angina, heart attacks)
  2. Diseases of the brain and its blood vessels (haemorrhage, stroke)
  3. Dementia / Alzheimer's
  4. Lung cancer
  5. Respiratory disease
  6. Diabetes
  7. Colon, rectum and anus cancer
  8. Blood / lymph cancer (mainly leukaemia)
  9. Diseases of urinary system
  10. Heart failure
Two of the most high-profile cancers -- breast and prostate -- are not in the top 10. Both are significant killers, and the fact that each disease primarily affects one sex (a small number of men do get breast cancer) helps explain why they're not the biggest killers overall. But this data raises uncomfortable questions around whether there's a disproportionate focus on certain cancers, while "yucky" cancers -- or cancers where we blame the victims -- miss out. Here's how the number of deaths from different cancers compare:

Australia's biggest cancer killers

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

10 comments

Leave a comment

10 thoughts on “Time for a brown ribbon? Data reveals the truth on cancer deaths

  1. mikeb

    The fact that skin and breast cancer affects young people probably boosts their profile, and I’ve seen plenty of promotions for leukemia and childhood cancer issues. Lung cancer would seem to be largely covered by the campaign against smoking so for me the only minimaly covered area is colorectal cancer. Even then once you reach 50 there is an information pamphlet mailed out for bowel/colon cancer and a free test kit. There’s always room for improvement and more resources – esp if you are one of the unlucky ones affected. The question is though how do you split a limited amount of resources fairly? I don’t think there is a real answer to that.

  2. Rosemary Stanton

    It’s not correct to claim breast cancer affects young women. The publicity is mainly about young women, but most cases occur in older women. The risk of developing breast cancer increases with age: with 23 per cent of new breast cancer cases diagnosed in women under 50; 51 per cent in women aged 50–69 years; and 26 per cent in women aged 70 years and over.

    I suspect that if older women were featured in the campaigns to raise money for breast cancer, less would be donated.

  3. Phen

    Brown Mt Franklin bottles coming soon!

  4. Cathy Alexander

    Very interesting point Rosemary. I do see quite a lot of breast cancer material that features younger women, and they do tend to get the media coverage (Kylie Minogue, Jane McGrath, Angelina Jolie). Perhaps this inspires people to get involved / donate; the sense that saving younger people is “worth more” than saving older people.

    This may explain why, despite dementia rising to be the third largest killer of Australians (ahead of any cancer), there’s not as much fundraising / campaigning as with some cancers (I know this is starting to change).

    When you think of coverage of sick people in the tabloids, it’s almost always a child or “young mum” or “young dad of 3”. You don’t see many people over 40 in those stories. Interesting.

  5. buraconn connors

    Finally the media revealing uncomfortable truths about disease prevalence vs public awareness. Breast cancer has a very high survival rate, despite public perceptions that show most women think breast cancer is the most common cause of death for women. The large number of breast cancer survivors have been excellent advocates for improved support for services and research. Unfortunately lung cancer has a very high death rate, which means there are very few people to advocate for this disease. “Victim blaming” is very selective, as it “obvious that people develop lung cancer due to smoking” but there is a significant group who have never smoked. Women with breast cancer are never “blamed” yet both smoking and obesity are significant risk factors for breast cancer. ( in fact smoking is implicated in increased risk for most cancers) I think the concept of a brown ribbon is great and love the ” bowel movement” . Just need some good catchy phrases for lung cancer!

  6. Waste of Time

    To a novice those lung cancer stats are quite startling. As smoking decreases in the population, are we likely to see less lung cancer deaths in the coming decades?

  7. buraconn connors

    We will definitely see a reduction in lung cancer due to decreased smoking prevalence. Unfortunately there is about a 20 year time lag.

  8. Karen

    Lung cancer is not just about smoking as a major cause. Its about polluted air caused by the particles emitted from car exhaust. Its a big elephant in the room that is not a convenient story for fossil fuel energy companies.

  9. Cathy Alexander

    Waste of Time, yes, I think that’s what the experts expect. Unfortunately deaths from lung cancer have been increasing. In Australia, there were 6976 deaths in 2003, 7635 in 2007, and 8137 in 2012. But there certainly is a time lag, and the smoking rate has decreased significantly in recent decades.

    Currently 18% of Aussie men smoke and 16% of women, which is relatively low, and has come down a lot. I wrote about that here: http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/01/08/australians-still-smoke-21-billion-cigarettes-a-year-why/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

    When you stop and think about the medical harvest Australia is reaping from pretty high smoking rates in the past, what is going to happen in Indonesia, where more than 50% of men currently smoke? Deaths from lung cancer in the developing world is not much reported-on but seems like a time bomb public health issue …

  10. Col Smith

    Good on you Karen, you see past the the tits and bums,to have to think about the causes of lung cancer would be to much for the market to bear.James Hardie is proof, what about all those renos and blue collar workers, they are a plentiful commodity, why bother fixing them in a private health care scheme.So lets keep cashing in tomorrow for today, of course its going to get worse, is the warming of the planet anything to act on. Its noyce to see some body thinking instead “wearing their informed opinions”.
    Regards a disillusioned Prole.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...