Kyra Abbott

Mr. Prueter

AP Language and Composition

April 15, 2023

In the month of October, pink ribbons are everywhere: on clothing, on yard signs, on
athletes’ jerseys at sporting events, and even on the pizza boxes at Hungry Howies. October is
the awareness month for Breast Cancer, and it never goes unnoticed. But what about September?
Does anything come to mind? Probably not.
September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month—a month dedicated to children
between the ages of zero and 19 who are battling cancer. However, one will not see many gold
ribbons around; if one does, one will most likely associate it with suicide prevention or maybe
even the military. But not childhood cancer. Every year, since its establishment in 2012, the
month comes and goes, expecting attention, yet the ill children stay in the
shadows—unacknowledged and ignored.
Although this lack of awareness is unintentional, it suggests that childhood cancer is rare,
and, therefore, does not see a need for any more funding or research or awareness than pediatric
cancers already receive. And, yes, there is some truth to the rarity of pediatric cancer. But only
when the average diagnosis rate of cancer in children is compared to that of adults. The truth is,
if the numbers and statistics that define pediatric cancer and its funding are truly broken down,
childhood cancer is far from rare. In fact, every three minutes, a child is diagnosed with cancer.
Childhood cancer is an epidemic stained with inequalities that steals the future of an innocent
child. It is not rare—and it demands our attention.
Due to this existing lack of awareness, pediatric cancers are vastly underfunded in
relation to other cancers. Over the course of 30 plus years, the amount of funding for childhood
cancer hasn’t changed. It remains at a microscopic 4% compared to a mighty 96% for adults.
This needs to change. Not that adults don’t deserve this funding. They do. But kids deserve it
too. Kids deserve more than four percent.
Emily McFadden, one of the founders of Little Warrior Foundation, an organization
dedicated to funding and finding a lasting cure for childhood cancer, states, “The National
Cancer Institute [NCI]—the government agency responsible for research and
education—receives a $6.44 billion budget” each year. The NCI distributes this budget to many
important projects that go towards fundraising and raising awareness for various types of cancer,
which is needed. However, the sad truth is that only about 250 million dollars is directed towards
pediatric cancers. While on the surface this appears to be a substantial investment, it is not nearly
enough for “how long, meticulous, and expensive cancer research is” (McFadden). The small
amount of money put towards childhood cancer limits pediatric cancer researchers; they can only
conduct so many studies based on the amount of money they receive.
 As a result, the treatments that are specifically designed for children have not improved
by much over the course of 30 years. Doctor Andy Kolb, a pediatric oncologist, said, “In the
same time period, there were about four drugs approved for children as opposed to about 200 for
adults” (Read). Research has become stagnant for kids, but exponential for adults. While this is a
life-changing shift for adults battling cancer, it negatively impacts every area of the pediatric
oncology field—from researchers, to doctors, to patients and their families.
All of this being said, one element of cancer funding must be clear: the NCI spends a set
amount of money on breast cancer, and a set amount on prostate cancer, and so on, but they only
spend a set amount on all pediatric cancers combined. This includes all types of pediatric
cancers: brain cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, neuroblastoma, bone and tissue cancer, and many
more. This is unethical. This is why the spending ratios are so unequal between children and
adults. This is why kids are developing cancer and dying at such young ages. The amount the
government gives does not equate to survival.
The issue of federal funding has become so severe that families are forced to raise money
on their own. It is the only way to fill the gap—to have any hope of a cure for childhood cancer.
Patients, families, and communities who are involved in the fight have hosted garage sales and
built lemonade stands in an effort to raise money for childhood cancer. Garage sales and
lemonade stands? Really? It should not have to be that way. McFadden sarcastically suggests,
“Maybe we should ask the astronauts to sell t-shirts and bracelets to fund their missions. It’s no
more ludicrous than kids having bake sales to fund a cure for their cancer.” The point is, it should
not be the families of kids with cancer who have to worry about cancer funding. At the very
least, it should be the families who don’t have to worry about medical bills and possible funeral
expenses. Really, though, it should be the government that needs to step it up. Because, at this
point, the gap between funding and research is so vast that it truly needs more support at the
federal level.
The few existing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved treatments for children
may lead to major health issues later in life. To boot, doctors sometimes have to administer adult
chemotherapy to children in order to compensate for the lack of available treatments for kids.
And, as a result, “more than 95% of childhood cancer survivors have lifelong health issues”
(Benjamin). This is not fair for kids. They may survive the cancer battle, but will then have to
face lifelong effects: impacts to normal development and problems with their heart, liver,
kidneys, and reproductive organs due to the toxicity of the treatments. This all means that, even
if a child does survive, they will always walk in cancer’s shadow.
Not to mention, there are terrible side effects from cancer treatments. Even though they
are temporary, they are still difficult for a child to endure. This includes anything from nausea
and vomiting to bone pain. Luckily, there are medications that have been developed in order to
help manage the side effects of chemotherapy. For instance, ondansetron was approved by the
FDA for managing nausea and vomiting. In addition, filgrastim was approved by the FDA for
better recovery of bone marrow after treatments; this allowed for patients to spend less days in
the hospital due to fevers and low blood cell counts.
 However, if funding could just increase, then treatments could be improved for pediatric
cancers, and there would be fewer side effects to ever worry about—both short and long term.
Right now, the question may be: “Ok, but how is this any different from what adults
experience during cancer treatment?” That is a fair question. Adults do experience similar
short-term side effects due to treatment, but not long term. Here is the missing piece: children are
not just small adults. Their growing, still developing bodies do not respond to treatments in the
same way that a fully grown adult does. Doctor Doug Hawkins, a pediatric oncologist at Seattle
Children's Hospital, explains, “So the consequences of giving brain radiation, for instance, to a
3-year-old compared with a 43-year-old are dramatically different. You have the same thing with
growth. If you’re delivering radiation to a child’s bone or limb, then it could dramatically affect
the growth of that bone or limb” (NCI). Chemotherapy and radiation targets fast-growing cells.
In adults, this includes cancerous cells, hair cells, skin cells, and cells that line the
gastrointestinal tract. In children, this includes almost every cell in their small bodies, for they
are still growing and developing. For this reason, kids need treatments that are specifically
designed to treat their underdeveloped bodies. They need treatments that not only gives them a
better chance at defeating cancer, but also allows them to live a more normal life after they finish
treatment. Once they survive, they should be able to step beyond cancer’s shadow.
The lack of funding and research for childhood cancer is a major inequality that will
definitely take time to fix. But awareness is the first step. Once people recognize that childhood
cancer is more common than it is assumed to be, the process of increasing funding and carrying
out more research will become much more improved. If the government cannot realize their lack
of support, maybe it lies in our hands to do that for them. Maybe we should join the fight. Maybe
we should join the battle that so many pediatric oncology patients and their families bravely face
every day. Because, no matter how childhood cancer gets viewed, it is an issue. A monumental
issue that needs our help—no matter how small or large our contribution.
The truth is, the inequalities that exist within the boundaries of childhood cancer are
really just a chain of reactions. It doesn’t just impact the child, it impacts everyone. The lack of
recognition and understanding limits funding, which limits research, which impacts how doctors
go about treating cancer, which impacts children and their families, which impacts everyone.
Yes, everyone, because—if these issues don't improve—future generations will experience the
same inequalities. This is why childhood cancer should be personal. Because if it isn’t you who
is impacted directly, then maybe it’s your children, or your grandchildren, or your cousin, or your
niece, or your nephew, or your friend’s child who is impacted. And if, one day, it truly does
become personal, you would have wished you made it personal sooner.