Cancer in the Twentieth Century by ProQuest


A compelling essay within this group is the Barron H. Lerner paper of the noted breast cancer advocate Rose Kushner's attack on adjuvant chemotherapy, a gripping presentation of the dichotomy of blurred roles and conflict of interest of a successful advocate in addition to being spokesperson for a pharmaceutical company. Cantor has assembled a collection that has appeal to those interested in the development and evolution of cancer treatments, the effect of gender and advocacy upon modifying or changing treatment protocols, and how public awareness and involvement has spurred cancer awareness and care.

More Info
									                                                                        Book Reviews         239

breast cancer. It is important that nurses committed to disease prevention and accurately
reporting the clinical practice histories of our profession read this work and use the findings
in this study to better inform both our clinical activities and our historical analysis of illness
as a lived experience in American society.

Linda E. Sabin, RNC, PhD
Professor of Nursing
University of Louisiana at Monroe
700 University Avenue
Monroe, LA 71209

Cancer in the Twentieth Century
Edited by David Cantor
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008)
(350 pages; $25.00 paper)

Cancer in the Twentieth Century is a compilation of selected papers presented at a 2004
same-named workshop at the National Institutes of Health in 2004. As editor, David Can-
tor presents these papers organized into three themes: “Between Education and Market-
ing,” “Therapeutics,” and “Prevention and Risk.” Focusing primarily on Britain and the
United States, these selections provide a trajectory of thought to cancer approaches and
treatments from the early 1900s to the 1980s. Only a few specific cancers are addressed,
serving as global representations for this disease.
      Whereas early American approaches to cancer focused on detection, treatment, and
public education, the British approach differed in its focus geared more to the practitio-
ner and therapies. Indeed, the British led the use of radium for cancer treatment in the
1920s and 1930s. The section “Between Education and Marketing” highlights the dif-
ferences between these philosophical approaches to public cancer education. American
approaches included the use of media for public education, particularly the movies. The
American Cancer Society spearheaded funding movies, trailers, and shorts with mixed
results. Increasing cancer awareness through publicizing children’
To top