Throughout Khullar’s article he expresses that “Using military terms like “battle” and “fighter” to help patients conceptualize their illness can sometimes harm more than it helps” (Kullar 1). I believe Khullar questions whether or not using metaphors to help the “fight the battle” will give them false hope. He establishes that some people suggest that viewing cancer as a fight can encourage emotional suppression. Khullar also expresses, that ultimately no metaphor is good or bad. At the end of this article he tells his audience that, whether or not his patient viewed her illness as a battle, it was her decision to fight in the end.
In my opinion, I think it is crucial to use military metaphors when you are treating a cancer patient. If you think about it usually the cancer patient doesn’t want to talk to their family, and express how weak they feel. The patient needs someone else to talk to to express how they’re really feeling, defeated. One study that was mentioned in this article said that physicians use metaphors in almost two thirds of their conversations with patients. This resulted in patients feeling more willing to fight.
“Patients who viewed their disease as an “enemy” tend to have higher levels of depression and anxiety, and poorer quality of life than those who ascribe a more positive meaning. More recent work has found that patients encouraged to “fight” may feel that they have to suppress their emotional distress and maintain a positive attitude to avoid upsetting family members-and clinicians” (Khullar 4). This quote from the article is not . only powerful, but backs up evidence that it’s important to view cancer as a battle.
I noticed throughout annotating this article, that I can see some similarities to Geary’s viewpoint and Erard’s viewpoints on metaphors. On one hand, Erard mentions the business side of metaphors, and mentions how metaphors are designed. “But it’s when we start testing our metaphors for their social and cognitive usability that design can become really powerful” (Erard 2). It’s important to have a meaning behind a metaphor when you’re designing one, and that’s the point that Erard is trying to convey. Throughout this article doctors are designing metaphors and analogies for patients who are fighting cancer. Erard’s article mainly focuses on the linguistic side of metaphors and how to make a metaphor actually mean something. Referring cancer as a fight or battle, means something. The doctor is designing a metaphor, so the patient feels like they can accomplish something in the end, if they choose to fight.
Throughout Geary’s article he stresses that metaphors are used in everyone’s day-to-day life. “Metaphors imply the deliberate action of a living thing pursuing a goal” (Geary 4). Geary mentions pursuing a goal in this quote and that’s influential. Listening to an article, like Khullar’s, can not only have an impact on other people, but it can influence more patients and families to defeat their loved ones disease.
I never would have thought that using words like fight and battle when you’re trying to conquer a disease would be viewed as metaphorical phrases or words. I always kind of thought when talking about cancer, it just the norm to associate those words with a serious illness. I feel as though people don’t realize when they’re actually using metaphors or analogies, but really we use them everyday. “I don’t know how she ultimately fared, or whether she came to see her illness as a battle, journey, marathon, rollercoaster, chess match-or none of the above. But I do know it wasn’t my decision to make” (Khullar 5). This quote is very powerful in my opinion, because at the end of the day it is the patients choice to decide how they want to go about their illness. Not only is it the patients decision to fight, but it’s the doctors choice to either believe or not believe in their patient. The only way for a patient to survive is if their doctor believes they can overcome their illness.
This is worded really well and is a strong response!! I love all the quotes you used and how you integrated them. I love how in the last paragraph you added that “its the patients decision to fight” and that the patient has to choose to want to fight.
I love the point you made about Erard and how he just creates metaphors, so if a patient were to hear a metaphor with “fighting words” in it, it’s up to them if they want to fight or not. I understand the article, and how calling a disease “the enemy” can affect people in a negative way. However, there are people who want to fight and use those metaphors as motivation. So you might want to elaborate more on how it’s the patients choice on how to take on a metaphor.
Good Job!
You said that it was crucial to use military metaphors for helping patients fighting cancer but is this always the best idea? Metaphors are neutral, they can be good or bad, even under the same metaphor. When a patient is fighting a disease that they are dying to should we still use the military metaphor? We don’t want to consider the enemy, or disease, as winning the fight and it’s possible that the patient would take it that way. This could harm the patient emotionally leading them to disconnect from family and their general life. Metaphors still are neutral and posses great power, the last thing we would want is to cause a patient more pain. We must consider greatly if metaphors are entirely safe as they can be understood in many ways.
You did an incredible job generating so much text! great job, Annie! I encourage you to revisit the quote in your third paragraph. I’m not sure if Khullar intended to say that a patient’s emotional suppression was a good thing. That doesn’t mean that YOU can’t argue that it’s a good thing–I just want to make sure that you understand Khullar’s argument.
Please don’t forget to link your image to the media file.