Mammograms: One doctor, her patients, herself
by Danielle OfriCNN.com October 8, 2010
Monday: Our journal club at the hospital reviewed the recent Norwegian trial showing limited benefits of mammograms.
Tuesday: I had my appointment for my own mammogram.
Wednesday: Veneta Masson’s article titled “Why I Don’t Get Mammograms” appeared in Health Affairs magazine.
There’s been a lot to think about in the realm of mammograms lately.TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
Why don't you address the issue of why the US has such an appallingly high infant mortality rate for a developed nation.
44 nations in the world, including Cuba and South Korea, have lower rates than the USA. Sweden and Singapore have infant mortality rates less than half of ours.
Why is this?
"Cancer screening tests should be treated like any other medical intervention. We want smart, dispassionate scientists to evaluate the data. I can’t predict how the mammogram data will eventually settle, but we should not be afraid to look at the data and re-evaluate our preconceptions. That’s the definition of science.:
My difficulty in accepting the USPSTF recommendations lies in their corporate partner, Health Insurance Plans which represents 1,300 health insurance corporations. It is to their benefit that women in their 40s not receive regular screenings, redefining "regular" as biannual.
Emotion aside, I know it is not "scientific" to accept the huge amount of anecdotal experience of individual women; however, when the breast cancer incidence has decxreased with regualr screening in thsi group, there needs to be a call to common sense.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to find these "smart dispassionate scientists" in many fields. (Jane Lubchenco coms to mind.) It is my understanding that the research that USPSF relied upon was 20 years old. They have recommended that women not be taught self examination and that MRI (which showed my cancer mass when mamms did not) should not be used. It is more expensive for sure, but involves no radiation exposure.
Numbers, cooked by corporate "partners", do not stand alone.