I think when a person has cancer, that's when I cut them a little slack in discussing the subject, public person or not. If I think what they are saying would interfere with someone else getting diagnosed and treated adequately, I will say so. But in this case, I think that comment is just about venting some frustration.
I imagine she felt very emotional about it, and just like with anyone else who has it/has had it, I consider how intensely they must feel about it, when 'judging' what they say.
In point of fact, I consider it no different if Carly Simon makes a remark, than I would if the lady next to me on the bus or in the gym said it. Carly Simon isn't God. SHe's just another person. If she says something that I don't quite agree with, I am not exactly going to get all mad at her and refuse to listen to her music. She's a singer, not a cancer expert.
My dad once told me that we shouldn't have any research on breast cancer, because 'It's not important enough for research because only women get it, and there are not enough people dying of it for it to deserve any research'.
Perhaps Carly had lunch with my dad that day.
How would you feel if you had cancer and were scared spitless, and someone told you that your death would be unimportant, that women getting a disease makes it unimportant, and your disease doesn't warrant research?
But that isn't the first time (or the last), I've heard someone say that sort of thing - the 'if men got breast cancer' sort of point of view.
And in point of very plain fact, there IS a bias toward what things get the bigger bucks in research. There is a very definite bias, and always has been...there are many different kinds of bias possible. Anyone who thinks that research by Big Pharm and other big bucks interests, is strictly a humanitarian activity, needs to wake up and turn their alarm clock off and stop dreaming. For quite some time, there has been a financial incentive behind research - common conditions for which a medication would have a huge potential market, were and often still are, much hotter than some other health conditions - even if those others caused a lot of fatalities and suffering.
In a way, the ideal disease is the ones that never get cured, and never kill people, and are very common. Those are where the big money is.
What has changed though, is that there just has been such an accumulation of knowledge about DNA and genes over the years, that despite the usual biases, treatment of breast cancer has improved immensely.
And what my dad and others who said things like he said missed, is that there is no predicting what other benefits a given bit of progress will cause. For example, someone invents a better MRI, and all of a sudden, it's as obvious as a thumb hit by a hammer, that mental illness is a disease process that damages the brain, and now we know exactly where and how it damages the brain, and that in turn led to knew knowledge about how to treat it - and some day even a prevention.
And I think the oft-heard 'if men got breast cancer' - is in response to comments like that - an angry response. But a response.
I do think that people like my dad, had no idea that men can get breast cancer.
But let's face it - most of the cases are in women, and even among those who realize men can get breast cancer, it is, fundamentally and correctly, viewed as a disease of women.
In a given year, 40,000 women will die of breast cancer in the US - 400 men will die - 100 times more women. 3/4 of people with breast cancer are women over 50.