A stupid headline?

[cee-dee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22796220

There's no way you can get anything if it's NOT during your lifetime? You can't get any disease when you're dead?

[aernethril]

It is indeed - and it's timed with another push for donations, so don't be surprised if you have another 'request' letter, pen and return envelope through your door soon.

[geographically*challenged]

thats coz im sending mine out to eACH AND EVERYONE.

iT SAYS i demand YOU GIVE ME (when I say you'll give to me it means exactly that. You shall GIVE TO ME 😉

[geographically*challenged]

Its cos I cent typin 🙂

[lhasa.two]

The article is relating to the time span of your life - that's your "lifetime" so it's correct!

[cee-dee]

Tell me how you could contract cancer NOT in your lifetime?

[suzieseaside]

'lifetime' is more convenient for a headline than 'during an average period of about 70-odd years'

[cee-dee]

What could be more simple than "Half of the UK population wil contract cancer"???

OR, because it's on the BBC site "50% of people will contract cancer"?

There's no need for "UK" or anything about "in their lifetime". They're certainly not going to contact cancer when they're dead.

[kiss*my*pixel]

I get Cee-Dee's point - if you contract Cancer (or, indeed, any other life-threatening illness) whilst your dead, then what would be the point in reporting it? If you contract Cancer whilst you are alive, it's a problem - if you contract it when you're already dead, then . . . . . . doesn't really matter, too late! If, indeed, that could actually be recognised and registered ?:|

Headline announces "contracting cancer during lifetime"

It is just pedantic wordy-stuff, but one would expect the BBC to get that right, for crying out loud!!!! :^O