Jade Goody has started planning her own funeral as her battle against cancer continues.
The celebrity told OK! that she has also written a will after being told she has a 50-50 chance of survival.
"I have thought about it and I do know what I want. Most people plan their weddings, but I'm planning my funeral," she said.
"Some people say they don't want people crying, but I want people to cry over me. And I don't want to have a booze up when I'm dead. They should have a cup of tea and be crying. I'd want to have an open funeral and let everyone who wanted to come along."
> I've seen different stats for it. I think cancer researchs logo
> is a triangle (think snooker) with 1 red circle out of 10. Still
> thats on a whole lifetime scale, the majority of people on this
> forum are under 30.
Very true, which makes me wonder why the Cancer Research UK adverts quote that figure, as I obtained (copy and pasted) this from their website; Cancer is primarily a disease of older people; therefore a person's risk of developing cancer is dependent on age. Overall, it is estimated that more than one in three people will develop some form of cancer during their lifetime. This compares to an estimated risk of 1 in 27 for people aged up to 50 years
The reference(s) for both figures are:
Quinn, M., et al., Registrations of cancer diagnosed in 1994-1997, England & Wales in Health Statistics Quarterly 07 Autumn 2000. Office for National Statistics. p. 71-82.
> Aren't the stats that 1 in 3 will develop cancer?
I've seen different stats for it. I think cancer researchs logo is a triangle (think snooker) with 1 red circle out of 10. Still thats on a whole lifetime scale, the majority of people on this forum are under 30.
> On the Karma side of things, didn't she go into breakdown after
> she left the BB house? You know, after the hypocritical celebrity
> news writers unleashed their full bullying fury upon her. God
> knows how she's back in the limelight and has yet another
> fragerence coming out, but there you go.
Well a lot of people say they build you up to knock you down, hence why I canít respect anyone who allows this to happen to themselves, then moans when the negative press inevitably stirs. It isnít an entirely new concept that what goes up must come down is it?
> I'll admit when I first heard this story, a sly chuckle went
> through my mind as I thought about how she deserved it. But
> simply taking a mature step back, and thinking about this, she's
> a mother and just another person. However ignorant and stupid she
> is, she still has to deal with fear.
I had the opposite response. Initially I thought ďah $hitĒ, as you do when you hear anyone is ill, but when she started to milk it then any sympathy I had quickly waned. I thought fear is normally dealt with a lot earlier in life. Most people have a family member or friend die and isnít that most commonly when you face up to your own mortality?
> Without naming names, there are at least 4 people on this forum
> who have had it themselves. I would imagine everyone knows
> someone who has had it.
Aren't the stats that 1 in 3 will develope cancer?
> We're all aware of cancer, I'm sure, and I'm sure a few of us
> have lost someone to the disease. At the very least we know
> someone who went through it.
Without naming names, there are at least 4 people on this forum who have had it themselves. I would imagine everyone knows someone who has had it.
> Which reminds me, I hate Breast Cancer Research, with all their
> pink and "it's a girl thing" slogan. I'm pretty sure
> thousands of men die from breast cancer each year, although the
> figure is much higher for women.
I'm on the same ship, Machie. I'd also love to do that "Race for Life" thing to raise money and awareness, but obviously I can't run it myself, and all the women in my family are lazy! :(
I also really don't like how breast cancer is the only form of cancer people seem to think kills you anymore. It's the only one you see heaps of adverts and support for. I'd really like to see a more general approach to cancer itself, not just where it's attacking you.
----- *reads the rest of the thread* -----
OK, you can look at this as some for of Karma, that Jade Goody deserves this pain for her racism and general ignorance. But when all the dust settles, this woman has cancer, maybe one of the most horribly abundant and slowly vicious disease around.
On the Karma side of things, didn't she go into breakdown after she left the BB house? You know, after the hypocritical celebrity news writers unleashed their full bullying fury upon her. God knows how she's back in the limelight and has yet another fragerence coming out, but there you go.
We're all aware of cancer, I'm sure, and I'm sure a few of us have lost someone to the disease. At the very least we know someone who went through it. So I don't think there's much excuse to be making fun of anyone who contracts it.
I'll admit when I first heard this story, a sly chuckle went through my mind as I thought about how she deserved it. But simply taking a mature step back, and thinking about this, she's a mother and just another person. However ignorant and stupid she is, she still has to deal with fear.
> Who would have thought this could turn into such an interesting
Isnít that the general idea of conversation?
> The argument over natural selection is an interesting one except
> what you're arguing isnt natural selection, it's human judgement
> and weighing up. Natural selection went out the window with the
> age of morality. Once people started to believe life was valuable
> and worth protecting regardless of it's quality then the human
> race chose its own evolution. I know for a fact there are people
> here who, if had been left to nature, would have died long ago.
Iím not totally sure thatís the case. No matter how evolved or advanced civilisation becomes, weíre still bound by the rules of nature, even if they manifest themselves in unusual ways.
> Knowingly corrupted? * Thinks for a minute *
> Ok, so you're a fairly good and all around you can see
> "evil" yet you allow it to take over anyway. Well i
> guess you'd either have to be fairly weak or you'd have to have
> lost all faith in your morality as a way of life.
It depends on your definition of weak; I think young children are the strongest as they say what they think, generally donít lie about important things, do what theyíre told when an adult is far more likely to agree then do what they want anyway. Also I donít believe you ever really lose morality. You may lose sight of it, but itís normally entrenched in every fibre of your body, hence why emotions such as guilt bubble up after devious deeds (well lets hope so otherwise we may be more lost than I originally thought)
> Regardless of what i think of her, i like that we live in a
> society that protects people though choice, even if it's not for
> the greater good and its against nature. If you take away that
> morality we're back to dog eat dog.
What about homeless people? I went out for dinner in chalk farm recently and was appalled by the way everyone was oblivious to the homeless people around. It isnít like it was the first time I had seen people on the street, but I guess in a richer part of town I just found the contrast even more galling. So Iíd say weíre pretty much Ďdog eat dogí. There are only a few people I know that volunteer at shelters, or take homeless people into their houses, which shows generally society doesnít protect.
> Actually, if you look I also gave an example of your logic I
> felt was broken and challenged you to cite some (hopefully
> reliable) sources for your claim that the medical profession
> think cancer is natural selection. It's easier to just reply to
> the thing that looks like a direct insult and then claim nothing
> of substance was added, though.
I replied to the Ďdirect insultí (although thatís an ambitious claim) because it was the only thing that hadnít been said by someone else, whilst even the supposed insult lacked a certain amount of originality compared to other posts. However if youíre just going to run off with your antlers between your legs then there is no point replying is there?
> Do not misunderstand me, there is little doubt we could all do
> things to decrease our chances of cancer. (Yet we all seem to be
> forgetting we will die one day regardless of what we do.)
For sure, and that raises even more questions. Can you really prolong (as apposed to shortening through unhealthy living) your life if we only have a certain share of soul/spirit/etc inside. Or the best variation Iíve heard in a physical sense is that your heart is only good for so many thuds.
> Either way your statement I feel needs some citations, if you
> can find some source backing up your statement then that will be
Annoyingly I canít find it, which would normally leave an argument flat on its ar$e, but Iím sure I didnít imagine it and more to the point Iíve had this trouble in the past. Whenever youíre trying to find evidence to back up a controversial point there never seems that many people willing to offer it. Another example would be the initial British apposement to the war in Iraq. Iíve seen the footage of Straw telling Powell his dossier is lacking in facts and Powell getting annoyed with him but try and find it.
> p.s. Good thread btw nice to see a more indepth discussion.
I kind of wish it didnít need to come with the initial hostility though. I know I didnít present this topic in a sensible way, but even when you do, as long as itís controversial people normally are apposed to it (with the exception of Grix Thraves)
> Are ridiculous assumptions necessary? How would someone living
> in the west live a non-western lifestyle. An incredibly
> elementary point about taking care of yourself was raised and
> then as an expansion, added was a bit about western lifestyle.
> That was a mistake, as I completely forgot that how we live now
> is right at the peak of human civilisation. Never mind even
> trying to explore how mankind survived millions of years before
> More to the point why if I feel this way would I say itís
> natural selection. That insinuation sounds fairly pretentious to
> me. With the statement I made there are actual sources to back
> that up and much anecdotal evidence of people being turned away
> by doctors, only to survive anyway (some of which I have heard
> first hand).
Do not misunderstand me, there is little doubt we could all do things to decrease our chances of cancer. (Yet we all seem to be forgetting we will die one day regardless of what we do.)
Either way your statement I feel needs some citations, if you can find some source backing up your statement then that will be fine.
p.s. Good thread btw nice to see a more indepth discussion.
> You have an issue with the lack of absolutes in my posts? Well
> of course there arenít, because theyíre absent from life in
> general. Iím not telling you this is exactly how it is, more
> like the other way of looking at it, or maybe that the general
> belief isnít ideal.
Think less 'absolutes' and more 'presenting controversial ideas coherently'. Bit of a waste of time replying to something if it only came about when I was trying to reverse engineer what you were thinking from what you wrote.
Now Iíve ran out of things to say, because
> you didnít really bring anything new to the argument, just the
> common finger pointing (which seems to work just as well when
> turned around so it canít have much substance).
Actually, if you look I also gave an example of your logic I felt was broken and challenged you to cite some (hopefully reliable) sources for your claim that the medical profession think cancer is natural selection. It's easier to just reply to the thing that looks like a direct insult and then claim nothing of substance was added, though.
I've no interest in continuing this, so I'll leave you to it.