however, when looked at from a years of quality of life standpoint, that amount of funding is nowhere near where it needs to be.
“every life is important, but if we put our energy there, our children are taken care of, quality of life, childhood isn’t lost, and that whole continuum has a bigger impact rather than extending the years of a 70-year-old’s life. again, it’s not about the value of a life, it’s about that lifetime of the person,” said smith. “a seven-year-old that can get 70 more years of quality of life, that is a much bigger success to us.”
it’s not about taking away from other areas, but rather correcting the lack of investment that could enact real change for children who survive childhood cancers but have a worsened quality of life for the rest of their lives because of it.
much of the research done on cancer is also thought to be interchangeable between child and adult cancers, but that’s simply not true. a pediatric-focused area is needed because children and adults are different in how they experience cancer, how they respond to treatments and how their bodies react after treatment is done.
“when we look at a child, especially a young child under the age of 15 or even younger than that, when they’re born and as they grow up, we put different soaps on their body. we’re advised to put baby soap on, and as well look into the treatments that we’re giving our children now, it is designed for an adult,” said smith. “their bodies aren’t prepared for it, so there’s a need for funding, which is a big part here, to say, how do we build better systems, better research and really focus on changing that funding amount?”