A Cancer Grows at Komen’s – Values versus Values

It’s a political year. They are of course all political years, but with a Presidential election in the offing and with the extreme societal factions “Occupying the Media” as they are usually encouraged to do, we are reminded over and over that the rigid position and the intransigent mind are not the hallmark of a democratic society nor are they of much service in protecting or advancing American values. It is strange that American politics and its prime practitioners, American politicians, are among least likely to recognize the hard fought for and remarkably attained rights of a free people and free nation. Perhaps I should find understanding and a little dread from Thomas Paine’s advice. The rights we hold, and the values they embody, if not diligently fought for and protected are not likely to endure. How then the cancer at Komen’s?

The Komen Foundation germinated from the seed of a tragedy planted into an aspiration to advance women’s health against the disease of breast cancer. The foundation organized and operated as a hard-driven force toward this goal. Who objected to their vision, to their commitment or to their success? Politics did. Politics introduced its visions, its objectives and its agenda into the Komen organization.

This too was a seed, but it was not a seed that would grow an organism that would bloom and nourish. It was not a seed that produces a vibrant flower that pleases the senses and sooths the mind. It was a virulent cancer that invaded the minds, hearts and body of the Komen leadership. Whether this cancer came from outside influences via a carcinogenic environmental contamination, or sprang forth from a defective principle that slowly or quickly mutated the internal functioning of the leadership from healthy and restorative actions; the Komen foundation has acquired a malignant pathogen. One could consider this a contest or conflict between competing values, but that there is an unhealthy condition in the body Komen is now a diagnosed fact.

For members and supporters of the Komen Foundation, they must recognize the disease and determine the best course of treatment. Many options are open to them but non-guarantee that a cure can be achieved, certainly not until the values contending for dominance in the organization are resolved, reconciled or the invasive agent is expelled or put into remission.

The original values for Komen were clear, concise and communal: promoting the battle against breast cancer, savings women’s lives and providing aid to those affected by the disease. Komen was embracing values of charity, compassion, faith, and hope: human values.  These values were and should remain unaligned with any one political philosophy, one societal identify, one racial group, one religious belief, one national entity, or one gender. If Komen’s goals are to help prevent, detect and treat breast cancer; and advance and fund medical and scientific research in support of developing treatments and ultimately cures for this pernicious and devastating disease; then they deserve their successes and can be admired for their efforts. But when Komen begins to inject new goals for the organization that represent values that are not supportive of those previous values and goals; then they open the organization to the destructive consequences that they produce.

Their problem is that not all values are equal. Not all values have the same commonality of purpose. And here is the most dangerous aspect of being diverted from your goal, of being distracted by someone else’s agenda, and assuming that all values are even positive values. That is what happened here. The values that some individuals believe are paramount to all others were being presented as the more relevant, more dominant, more right values to use in determining the direction of the foundation and the foundation’s policies. That these values do not relate to the objectives of curing breast cancer were the mistake, the distraction, the error. These values having injected their DNA into the organization may have doomed Komen to never being able to return to its previous healthy state.

The treatment that might be required here is that those who seek to free women from the risks and ravages of breast cancer may need to pursue a new and different organization’s efforts in this area. It would seem that in the best interests of women, women need another organization that promotes eradicating the scourge of breast cancer. Under any sound operating scheme, having two sources to fulfill your needs is essential if for no other reasons than that if one falls to any particular threat then you have the other to sustain you. It is an imprudent person who puts all their hope in one basket.