In april 2016, Cancerfonden launched a campaign against the endemic disease cancer. The campaign
was named ”Say NO to cancer!” which purpose was to raise awareness for the preventive
measures, which if followed correctly could preclude one third of all affected by the disease. The
campaign met a lot of criticism in media, from both individuals and the media itself. As a result of
the criticism, the campaign came to an end a week after its launch.
The purpose of this essay is to investigate what is morally doubtful with the campaign itself, and if
the criticism directed towards the campaign is morally justified. As a subsidiary aim, the essay also
examines whether it is reasonable to argue that the individual alone bears responsibility for their
Through a reflective qualitative content analysis, the following conclusion was reached. The campaign
was morally doubtful in that way that the criticism directed towards the campaign mediated
that the message was perceived as they were kicking on those who already suffered from cancer,
even if these individuals hade followed their measures, as they presented the preventive measures as
a lifestyleification where it all was taken very easy upon. The fact that Cancerfonden on their own
decided to lay the campaign to rest is evidence enough that something wasn’t right. Cancerfonden
themselves did in a public message explain that it was never their intention to blame anyone for getting
affected by cancer. As an individual and the society has a shared interest in the individuals
health, the campaign met a lot of criticism in areas such as guilt, responsibility of the individual
versus the institution, misinterpretation of the purpose of the campaign and generally a lack of clarity
of its purpose.
2016. , 37 p.
Cancerfonden, cancer, ethics, moral, health.