EVERYONE will be moved by the anguish expressed by Emma Brook tonight. She has lost her father Malcolm, aged only 50, to cancer. She could only watch, helpless, as this terrible disease took its toll. Others who have been through a similar torment will recognise her description of terminal cancer as "the most horrendous death you can imagine".

The ordeal was made worse for Emma and her father by an EastEnders storyline. Character Ethel Skinner is dying of cancer, but this portrayal of the disease was too sanitised to be recognised by the family as the same wretched experience suffered by Mr Brook.

This raises some awkward questions about the role and ambition of popular television. EastEnders has established a tradition of tackling difficult subjects, but that does not alter the fact that it is a soap opera. Broadcast early in the evening, its main remit is to entertain a family audience. Therefore EastEnders could never show the most harrowing effects of cancer.

That does not mean that serials like EastEnders should avoid this sort of issue, however. The soap attempts to mirror our society and, as one in three of us contracts cancer, the subject is hard for programme-makers to ignore.

To be fair to them, they have treated the Ethel storyline with some sensitivity. The programme has dwelled on the community's response to her condition, with friends and neighbours rallying round. Medical experts and cancer charity workers were consulted before writing began, and have since praised the programme for the way it is handling the issue.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that by tackling topics like Aids and racism, EastEnders raises awareness and understanding of them. That was clearly one intention of the cancer storyline.

But EastEnders' bosses must never forget the impact their programme has on real people. We hope they apologise personally to Emma for any distress the programme caused her family. Her complaint is a reminder that heavy subject matter and light entertainment are never easily reconciled.