I was watching Law and Order, the new season where the Lieutenant finds out she has cancer. She goes into chemotherapy with little fanfare. I didn't know what kind of cancer it was until I saw this particular episode, though, where her doctor gives her the news. The exchange culminated in the doctor telling the patient, "You have HPV. It's the virus that causes cervical cancer."
 
Okay, whoa, whoa. THE virus that CAUSES cervical cancer. That, to me, implies that there's only one cause for this particular form of cancer, and that's a sexually transmitted virus.
 
The rest of the conversation consisted of the lieutenant baffled that she could have gotten it so quickly since her new sexual partner had only been with her, like, a week or something. Duh huhr, first of all. Second, DUH HUHR again. Anyway, then she realizes her ex-husband from five years ago must have given it to her, and she's all "that cheating bastard! Left me with this!" The problem there being that it takes *years* for cervical cancer to develop, and there's no indication of whether or not she was a carrier before the marriage, or if he was. I mean, it's not like AIDS where a test can come back positive in six months and voila, you know how you're gonna die. Not all HPV viruses develop into cervical lesions, and not all of the cancer-causing strains develop into cancer, either. And when it does, it takes, as I said... YEARS. And even with the new ACS recommendations that women above age 30 get PAPs only every two to three years, she still should have had a damn test catch it in time. What, the NYPD health care plan doesn't pay for women to have physicals? Or was her doctor retarded?
 
And my major beef with this is the implication that, if you have cervical cancer, it's because you have an STD. That's not how it works. I'll grant that a large percentage of cervical cancers began as an HPV-related lesion, but that's not the case for all. For example, I've had two abnormal PAP smears in the last 6 years. Both times I was evaluated for HPV (for obvious reasons) and both times I came back negative. Sometimes shit just happens. It's like the assumption that lung cancer = cigarette smoke. What, people didn't get lung cancer before discovering tobacco?
 
Law and Order is basically reflecting a widely held belief here in the United States that there are simple causes and cures for everything in medical science. It's all just a matter of finding the right pill, or the right gene. And if there is no cure yet, it's only a matter of time, or it's because insurance companies/doctors/pharmaceuticals/the gummint are trying to stifle it because they can make more money if you're sick. (I wonder if these same tinfoil hat-wearing idiots are the ones who get freaked out when the government uses tax dollars to fund medical research.)
 
Of course, I'm referring to a program here that once had an episode about Fundamentalist Mormons that made several misinformed statements about the actual LDS church. You could argue that they were simply portraying some pretty widespread ignorance about the church, but consider this: Let's say someone on such a widely syndicated show as Law and Order were to state "Oh, blacks - aren't they the ones who are shiftless and lazy?" Would someone then saying "Oh, no, they aren't ALL like that" resolve things? Would that be acceptable?
 
I'm not saying that Law and Order has an obligation to educate the public on religion and medical science. However, if they're going to make claims on topics other than, say, LAW and ORDER, perhaps they should do their fucking homework.