I Had Cancer But I Questioned If I Am Truly a Survivor

February 20th, 2018 | Survivorship

Merry-40736 | Survivor: Lung Cancer    Connect

Ehere is often, for some reason, a controversy over who a survivor is or not. This makes no sense to me at all. If you were hit by a car and almost died, would you be a survivor? Would it make a difference if someone saved you or if it was just luck that you didn't die? To me, a survivor is someone who is alive after an event where others have passed away. It doesn't matter if you had a hand for your survival or had help. It doesn't make any difference what you do after, or how long you live (survive) after. You exist, even if you are fighting the disease. And as long as you exist you are a survivor. I can't stand the nitpicking of subcategories: if you survive chemo and your cancer never comes back you are a survivor. But what if my cancer comes back after a period of time was I still a survivor or do I have to start all over again? Was I a double survivor? Is there a name for this?

While I was healing from my first lobectomy, during my first diagnosis of lung cancer, I had a lot of time to reflect on this - what it meant for me to have had cancer, have it operated on, and need no further treatments. It felt like I was lacking something, like a tight lifeline to the end of a story. I was told that there were no successful follow-up treatments for this kind of cancer. I knew so many people who have had follow-up treatments and I "wanted" one because I felt that if I didn't I wouldn't be a survivor. 

Read More: