Sometimes in the blink of an eye, life takes a sudden turn. On Sept. 1, 2011, my brother, Scott, was admitted to the hospital after an MRI found a tumor in his back. A CT scan the next day revealed more troubling news: more tumors. Someone who routinely ran 100 miles a month was now confined to a hospital bed, barely able to move without severe pain.
Four months prior, Scott was at his athletic peak, completing his very first marathon in Cincinnati, finishing in an astounding 3:45. Little did we know that, in all likelihood, he completed those 26.2 miles while in the early stages of lung cancer.
Scott's inner drive and determination while running were undeniable, and we felt that those traits could push him over the top in this battle. While there were setbacks, Scott persevered. However, for every step forward, lung cancer forced him two steps back. It was a hill he could not climb, and he lost his battle just days before Christmas at the age of 26.
Having never smoked in his life, how could lung cancer have stricken Scott? Sadly, doctors were never able to give us any answers.
We have set up the Scott A. Garet Memorial Foundation and have organized the Flying Monkey 5K Run/Walk in support of raised awareness and funds for lung cancer research. We have been able to meet many wonderful individuals, including those at the American Lung Association. Others are battling with us, fighting to shed light on this topic. Lung cancer does not just impact smokers. Something needs to be done, and I and my family will continue Scott's fight.
He would do the same for us.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.