Why I Took Pharma Money — and Why WeNeed More

1. The Problem

I was a single working mom, a grassroots cancer advocate, and the only Canadian attending a major U.S. breast cancer lobbying conference. I was tired, underfunded, and trying to change a system that didn’t notice us — let alone listen.

At the same time, a small local group of survivors wanted to do more than share stories. We wanted policy change. But we didn’t have the money, reach, or political muscle to get there alone.

2. The Tension

Patient advocates were expected to be “pure.”Pharmaceutical funding was treated as a moral failure — regardless of transparency or outcomes.

I had already seen how quickly people were shamed, sidelined, or dismissed for accepting corporate support. The unspoken rule was clear:Stay righteous and small — or risk being judged.

3. The Choice

When a pharmaceutical industry rep offered funding, my first instinct was to say no.

Then he asked one question:

“Do you want to stay here and feel alone and righteous — or take everyone to Washington and learn how to make a difference?”

I chose the second.

We took the money, filled a minivan with survivors, and learned how real advocacy works by shadowing U.S. groups lobbying their lawmakers. We brought those lessons home.

4. What Happened

Not long after, we successfully lobbied the Canadian government for $25 million to establish the National Breast Cancer Research Initiative.

Later, something even bigger happened.

In 2004, more than 70 cancer organizations and medical professionals joined forces to save Canada’s national cancer plan — a plan built by 700 volunteers over 10 years and ignored by government.

With $1.5 million from 10 pharmaceutical companies, we launched a national public campaign. No logos. No special treatment. Full transparency.

In 2006, the Prime Minister announced $250 million to create the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer.

That funding still shapes cancer care in Canada today.

5. The Takeaway

Pharmaceutical funding did not corrupt the mission. It enabled it.

The real ethical question isn’t who funded the work — it’s:

• Who set the agenda?

• Who benefited?

• Who was accountable?

Used transparently and collectively, private funding can unlock public good — especially when governments won’t act and communities can’t wait.

6. The Bigger Question

Most grassroots cancer groups that helped make this change no longer exist. Funding dried up. Donations declined. Governments stepped back.

Meanwhile:

• Cancer cases are expected to rise 70% in the next decade

• Patients need more support, not less

• Traditional charity models are failing

If we keep shaming advocates for using available tools — including private investment — we guarantee fewer voices, less care, and more suffering.

This isn’t about defending pharma.

It’s about refusing to let ideology block progress.

That’s not an attack.

That’s a conversation — and it’s the one we need now.