Disclaimer: I live under a rock, don’t own a TV, and have never read a print copy of USA Today. I’m pretty okay with all three statements.
Kudos to Grey’s Anatomy for: showing young adult cancer along with family and fertility issues, illustrating melanoma as a serious deadly disease, and revealing that advanced cancers do not have a quick fix solutions but involve super challenging choices between two evils with no guarantee for favorable results… if you are lucky.
But, damn Grey’s for not getting it right. An article in USA Today says Izzie’s options not accurate: surgery, with memory loss as a side effect, or interleukin-2. American Cancer Society confirmed that IL-2 is never recommended for melanoma brain mets because it can cause bleeding and strokes.
Grey’s consults with MDs, so why can’t they get it right? Are they just dialing up the drama on the storyline? I’ve been living with cancer for nine years and there is plenty of drama to go around with my story just from the very accurate and real life details.
Does Grey’s do more harm than good with this storyline? Good: It spurs discussion and awareness. This article highlights one of my all time favorite orgs, Planet Cancer, and quotes JT, one of the most amazing people I’ve ever met.
But consider this quote from Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer at ACS: “Many people view the cancer problem as much simpler than it actually is. That’s because they get their medical information from television shows. But television shows are by and large fictional, and much of the medical information there is also going to be fictional.”
Do you watch Grey’s? Does the storyline do more harm than good? What does it say that instead of covering healthcare policy, a major American newspaper is covering the TV coverage of a fictional cancer patient? And have I just lowered my standards by blogging about a USA Today article?
“Everything Changes is, without doubt, the most forthright, emotionally sophisticated, and plain-old valuable book of its kind I've seen.”
