The Today Show covered the new mammography guidelines this morning. Basically the guidelines used to say that all women 40 and older should have a mammogram every year or two. Today new guidelines were released from some government task force stating that only women over 50 should get mammograms and only every 2 years (unless the woman is considered at risk).
I was stunned... speechless. The reason breast cancer has become so treatable is because it is so often caught early. And here's the kicker - the new guidelines say that breast self exams are not worth the time and worry. I'll be the first to admit, I am positive there is plenty of research behind these new guidelines and I know there is good reasoning behind it all. Maybe if I read a few more articles and really tried to understand it all I could. But my gut reaction is fear. Fear that women of all ages will hear these new guidelines and stop being proactive. Fear that a woman who could have been treated and made a full recovery will miss her window of opportunity and die because she waited till she was 50 to get a mammogram.
My Mom was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 46 (I think - sorry if I got that wrong, Mom!). I am positive it was before she turned 50. If not for breast exams and mammograms I don't know that my Mom would be here today. My mom wasn't considered at risk.
On the Today Show Meredith asked Dr. Nancy Snyderman (their medical correspondent) "Are they saying that early screening does not save lives or doesn't save enough lives to justify it?" My blood was boiling because even if Meredith could ask that question in her non-biased tone, I would have been spitting that question at Nancy. Her response didn't give me any warm fuzzies either. It was unsurprisingly indirect. She said "For women in their 40s, 1900 women must be screened to save 1 life but for women over 60, 400 must be screened to save 1."
So my new question is then don't those lives matter? If one life is being saved for every 1900 young women being screened, isn't it more than worth it? To me it is. To my mom it is. Are not the risks (small amounts of radiation, the possibility of unecessary biopsies, the worry) worth it if only to save one life for every 1900 screened? Meredith asked Nancy what her response would be to women who would say that a breast self exam saved their life. "You're going to hear anecdotes like that but those anecdotes and this big data of science are not the same thing."
Anecdotes? Interesting or amusing accounts?! To those women who are alive today because they had breast exams and mammograms before they turned 50 I don't think they'd find their stories amusing. Excuse my language but Dr. Nancy Snyderman is an insensitive twat. That 1 in 1900, she is somebody's daughter. She could be someone's sister, aunt, mother... she is not scientific data.
To see what the American Cancer Society has to say, click here http://tinyurl.com/yk8q8fu
The bottom line for me is this - if we have an effective screening for a disease, why are we telling women not to take advantage of it? I'm too emotionally entrenched to think clearly about the other side of the argument yet. I'm giving over my anger, frusration and fear and instead just praising my Lord that I still have my Mom.
1 week ago
1 comments:
I was catching up on your blogs (I haven't read in a couple months) and saw no one commented on this post. I just wanted you to know that I absolutely understand your anger over this. I've know so many people who have had breast cancer and so many have it before 50. There are tons of other screening and other things done that could be seen as unnecessary or not worth it that save lives. Why not take advantage of it? We get physicals every year and have blood taken. I know that's not the same as a mammogram but they run a battery of tests even for early 20 year olds every year just to make sure. They check my cholesterol every year even though I'm young, a healthy weight, eat decently and exercise. Is that unnecessary? We get pap smears every year and I don't think I personally know anyone who's had cervical cancer, but like I said, everyone knows many women who've had breast cancer. Even if it only saves 1 in 1900 women in the US in their 40's, that still adds up to a lot of women every year.
The focus of the medical world has become so focused on the cost of health care and medical insurance. It's all very backwards and is a total mess. I think this is something that has more to do with saving money than what's the best, medically, for women.
Anyway, now I feel like I'm rambling, but I wanted you to know you're not the only one upset and confused by this and the various reactions.
Becca
Post a Comment