On Acceptance of the Third Musio Athayde Cancer Prize

Professor Emeritus Clinical Oncology andFormer Chief, Thoracic Service, TataMemorial Hospital, Mumbai, India

The recent conferment of the Mucio Athayde Interna-tional Cancer award through the aegis of the UICC inAugust, 1998 has been a source of much satisfaction andhappiness; in fact, it is a recognition of the effort of theentire oncologic community in India, a vast subcontinentrapidly reaching a population of 1 billion. It is also, Ibelieve, a special acknowledgment for the Tata MemorialCentre, Bombay (an institution governed by the Depart-ment of Atomic Energy, Government of India) and alarge number of my colleagues with whom we continueto plan need based anti-cancer strategies be it in preven-tive and therapeutic oncology or in cancer education orrehabilitation. Having spent more than 4 decades in thecancer field, this life time recognition, apart from the joyand happiness that it brings, is, I believe a stimulus, aninspiration to carry on with our work to fight cancer.

At the turn of the millennium we are on the thresholdof an era of “cautious” optimism in the cancer field. Ourcurrent technology affords us opportunities to diagnose

most cancers earlier than ever before; preventive strate-gies can enable us to eliminate nearly 50% of the com-mon cancers and with efficient and appropriate treatmentwe can cure nearly 70% of cancers diagnosed in an earlystage. Pain relief and palliation can be achieved in almostall patients when cancer remains uncontrolled. For thefirst time in history reduction in cancer mortality hasbeen reported in 1998.

Why then, amidst such an encouraging environmentof new knowledge and new technology have our curerates generally remained on a plateau since 1970 bar afew spikes here and there. Why is the public percep-tion—although changing—still skeptical with regard tocancer cure and control, and cancer research?

For too long we have been ensconced and entrapped inan intensely “scientific & technologic” environmentwithout appreciating the sensitivity and perceptions ofthose who are afflicted and their families. We must knowthat a technology oriented environment—and we cannot

Praful B. Desai, MD, FRCS(E), FACS

Journal of Surgical Oncology 1999;71:207–208

© 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

escape this scenario—is not particularly patient friendly.It is precisely our increasing professional prowess thatdemands more sensitivity in dealing with our patients,and to ensure that we take medicine to the people in asimple language that is not only understood but is en-couraging and reassuring, which will help demystifymodern medicine.

This is just one reason why alternative medicine istaking major strides over technologic medicine. Muchremains to be done not only in the developing countriesbut also in the developed countries. Apart from changingthe perception in the community, cancer educationamong the professionals needs to be strengthened. In adeveloping country like India, socio-economic factors,disparate standards in cancer therapy, paucity of avail-able diagnostic and therapeutic facilities, lack of welltrained professionals in oncology are major factors whichhave a negative impact on the cancer scene. In our con-tinuing efforts to improve this scenario a “School forProfessional Cancer Education” with national and inter-national collaboration through the UICC is being envis-aged. The Mucio Athayde awards moneys will be utilisedfor training young Oncology Professionals in the pro-posed school where national and international students

and faculty will bridge the gaps to transcend nationalbarriers towards a common cause.

It is important in life to know where we are but Ibelieve it is more important to know where we areheaded. Today we stand amidst a biologic revolution inmedicine in general and cancer in particular. With mo-lecular biology and its nuances are at a sea-change inhuman health and disease. Our technologies and biologicunderstanding are racing towards conferring immortalityto the human system. At the turn of the century and intothe next millennium, is this the road we wish to pursue,or do we wish also to cherish and preserve the age-oldvalues of a human approach in medicine—the gentle andcompassionate physician, knowledgeable in current tech-nology and yet not going overboard at everything that isnew; constantly weighing benefits against the risks, suc-cess against the failures and critically evaluating oldtreatments versus new techniques. Technology has con-ferred immense benefits to humankind but only whenused with care and compassion. Let there be a harmoni-ous synthesis of human values, technology and science inthe pursuit of our objectives, for, if we do so we still havea great opportunity to preserve and restore to medicinethe best tradition of the years that have gone by.

208