> This argument appears to revolve around a very unconventional definition of the word "cure".
It's not at all unconventional -- in fact, it is the most common definition, and cancer doesn't meet it, which is why medical ethicists insist on "remission".
The point is that, given the public's common understanding of the word "cure", i.e. that after treatment a particular disease has been eradicated, cancer cannot be cured, only placed in remission.
> That outbreak of cholera was successfully cured ...
Now you're desperately trying to inject this word into sentences where it has no place. The cholera outbreak was stopped, but the problem of identifying the cause remained, just as with cancer. Therefore, no cure -- it's the wrong word.
Another example would be to respond to a Plague outbreak by moving to the country, as Newton did. Is that a cure? Of course not -- it's a survival strategy, but it has no depth or insight.
Remember that Semmelweiss was unable to get doctors to wash their hands, even though he had excellent statistical support for his suggestion, because he couldn't explain why his suggestion worked.
> Its OK to have a near religious belief in unusual definitions; its just useless when trying to talk to the general public, especially if they operate under the logical opposite of your personal definition.
Thank you for making the exact point I have been trying to make, to wit: in fairness we must pay attention to the public's understanding of this quotidian term. Most diseases that have treatments in modern medicine, also have cures. Cancer doesn't. To claim otherwise is to violate medical ethics.
It's not at all unconventional -- in fact, it is the most common definition, and cancer doesn't meet it, which is why medical ethicists insist on "remission".
The point is that, given the public's common understanding of the word "cure", i.e. that after treatment a particular disease has been eradicated, cancer cannot be cured, only placed in remission.
> That outbreak of cholera was successfully cured ...
Now you're desperately trying to inject this word into sentences where it has no place. The cholera outbreak was stopped, but the problem of identifying the cause remained, just as with cancer. Therefore, no cure -- it's the wrong word.
Another example would be to respond to a Plague outbreak by moving to the country, as Newton did. Is that a cure? Of course not -- it's a survival strategy, but it has no depth or insight.
Remember that Semmelweiss was unable to get doctors to wash their hands, even though he had excellent statistical support for his suggestion, because he couldn't explain why his suggestion worked.
> Its OK to have a near religious belief in unusual definitions; its just useless when trying to talk to the general public, especially if they operate under the logical opposite of your personal definition.
Thank you for making the exact point I have been trying to make, to wit: in fairness we must pay attention to the public's understanding of this quotidian term. Most diseases that have treatments in modern medicine, also have cures. Cancer doesn't. To claim otherwise is to violate medical ethics.