Talks of Mammogram Screenings AFTER 50

[hiitdogs]

But I also know that if the recommendations of this panel are followed, many women will die who might have lived.

This is true! But what about those women who wouldn't have gotten breast cancer if it wasn't for the radiation exposure to mammograms? I don't think there is any doubt that radiation cleary can cause cancer? What about the women who are needlessly treated with chemo and radiation and die from the side effects from the treatment and would have not died from the disease?

My biggest complaint in my treatment was that the first few doctors that I consulted just made a decision as to what THEY wanted to do. They did not give me any pros and cons although I kept asking them. I think any health decision is a very personal one and my assessment of risk vs. benefit may be a very different one than someone else's. Something that may be a benefit to some, I may not consider a benefit. Therefore, I do not think that there should be a one-size-fits-all approach to health care or treatment but unfortunately this is how medicine is practiced these days.

I don't think there is any right or wrong answer. I am the only person who can make a decision about MY treatment. The only thing that I am glad about is that there is finally a discussion about the cons of cancer screening for the masses and that people can make informed decisions based on what they think is best for them and not what someone - including doctors - thinks is best for them.

Personally I am opting for thermography and blood tests instead of any further PETscans, CATScans or MRIs.

 

[morningstar]

I spoke to my doctor about this at my annual physical, just a few days ago. She said that in Canada, the recommendation is to start routine mammograms at age 50, unless there is a specific reason to start earlier. So the report was in line with what we are already doing. I've had one, although I was only 37 at the time, because of breast pain. You want to talk pain? Mammograms hurt like the bejesus!

 

[Lastchance09]

I've heard quite a few people slamming these "scientists", but it was also these "scientists" that gave us the old guidelines. They didn't come out of thin air. Most women are asking what's up with the change. I'd like to know how and why they came up with the original guidelines. This needs to be discussed rationally among all parties involved and presented fairly by the media instead of the hysteria that happened in the past week. I was especially pissed when Elizabeth from The View called it gender genocide - incredibly irresponsible. Even more horrified when the others in the panel clapped for it.

And I'm not worried about them becoming a rule/law since the previous guidelines weren't.

 

[Govtgirl]

I wonder if under the new govt health care bill, they won't pay for mammograms for women under 50 because of this new report? And if not, wouldn't that be sort of "lucky" timing for the government?

Of course, we'll have to wait and see, but personally I like having the option under the healthcare I have with my employer, that I can, and have, had yearly mammograms since I was 40.

 

[dr.mel_PT]

I wonder if under the new govt health care bill, they won't pay for mammograms for women under 50 because of this new report? And if not, wouldn't that be sort of "lucky" timing for the government?

I was wondering the same thing...

Hittdogs, I can see how the radiation could be harmful, I didn't even think of that honestly. Thanks for sharing those articles. And as Shadowpup was saying, mammograms might not be the best detectors. However, what I had the biggest problem with was in the original article, how they said doctors are being instructed not to teach women how to do self exams. What in the heck is the point of that?! To me that sounds extremely irresponsible.

 

[hiitdogs]

How would that be lucky timing? It would be about the worst time to make this public while they are still trying to get the health care bill through knowing that the Republicans and anyone who they scared about the new health care bill will be having a hay day with it.

This is what Dr. Susan Love had to say about it:

"These new recommendations are long overdue. Most countries do not support mammography screening under 50 and do it every other year after 50 in their government-sponsored screening programs," said Dr. Susan Love, founder of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation.
"I hope that the insurers will change reimbursement, because it is probably the only way that women will be spared the extra radiation exposure of too many mammograms," Love said. "Since our system pays the radiologist, hospital or mammography center and biopsying surgeon by the more they do, there is no incentive for this to come from the medical profession."

Germany for example screens women between 50 and 69, every two years. The death rate is not higher than it is in the US. And the US certainly does not have any better outcomes than Germany.

With mammograms what is often found are the tumors that often disolve on their own or can easily be removed. On the other hand, for the aggressive tumors, the ones that spread and grow quickly a yearly mammogram can be pretty useless, depending on timing.

The problem is that in the eyes of the public and also in how we treat tumors there really is no distinction made. We treat all of them aggressively and think the more aggressive treatment the better the outcome must be. But that's a totally different discussion.

I haven't found out what the background is on the recommendation of discontiuing the self exam. I have often thought that the monthly check is "searching for disease" and wondered if it is almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy on a psychological level but I don't understand what the harm of the self exam would be.

I don't have a problem when guidelines are changed because of better or new information. Maybe it is time that we look at things in a different way because the old way sure as heck is not working all that well.

 

[Govtgirl]

"Lucky" was in quotes, as in ironic. People are wondering how to pay for the health care bill. If women don't need to be screened until their 50's, then that is one way for the govt to cut costs while assuriing everyone that their health won't suffer.

 

[autumn]

I'm not an expert, I was just relaying what the recomendations are. A pap smear is a test for cervical cancer not for STDs. For the record, I think anyone who is sexually active and having unprotected sex should be tested for STDs whatever the age, but, I don't think that changes the recommendations for the age to begin pap smears.

This is correct, but there is some variability among health care providers. The changes in Pap guidelines were made b/c of overtreating and the current understanding of HPV and cervical cancer.

 

[morningstar]

I would just like to say thank god for both the internet and women's lib. This is a conversation that just would not have happened even 40 years ago. Talking about mammograms, breast self exams, pap smears, STIs, early sexualization, breast cancer and the ability to be involved in our own health care decisions from the perspective of women of all backgrounds and histories. This is a beautiful thing.

 

[cockateils]

I agree with Carola 100% about the dangers of mammography. Thermography is a much safer non radiation alternative.
Radiation exposure is cumulative and a yearly mammos add up over the years. Maybe that is why there is so much breast cancer now, too much mammo screenings.

 

[Govtgirl]

I agree with Carola 100% about the dangers of mammography. Thermography is a much safer non radiation alternative.
Radiation exposure is cumulative and a yearly mammos add up over the years. Maybe that is why there is so much breast cancer now, too much mammo screenings.

But breast cancer rates have dropped in the US, "..between 2001-2004, incidence rates decreased by 3.5% per year."

Whether it's thermography or mammograms, if the government thinks it's not necessary, and if you're under a government health care option (cough cough, curious timing of this report....), they won't pay for it.

But, whatever, as long as I can keep my health care, I will get whatever tests I think necessary, and to heck with what the govt thinks about it!

 

[hiitdogs]

It depends on which statistic you look at.

The breast cancer rate dropped because of the decline of prescription of Prempro (hormone replacement drug) from 60 million in 2001 to 20 million in 2005. In a clinical trial of the drug it was found that within a year of women quitting Prempro, breast cancer diagnosis fell by 28 % to 1 in 231 compared to 1 in 155 for women who stayed on the hormones for 5 years. If you take these out of the equation the breast cancer rates are up.

Secretary Sebelius has clearly stated that there will be no change in coverage of mammograms. The public option (if there will be any) will NOT limit coverage of mammograms.

 

[Govtgirl]

It depends on which statistic you look at..

Exactly! As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Sorry, I never should have quoted a statistic in the first place, they are really meaningless, therefore I can't trust the Prempro statistics or studies either.

Secretary Sebelius has clearly stated that there will be no change in coverage of mammograms. The public option (if there will be any) will NOT limit coverage of mammograms.

Well, thank goodness a government official has promised us something, because we know they would never lie or distort the truth Or be over-ruled by another govt official later.

Suffice it to say, I do not trust the government one iota to make my healthcare decisons for me. This whole new recommendation is based soley on money, not because they give a rat's butt about what is best for our health. I think the timing is a bit curious, given all the whoo-hah about the health care bill. We obviously disagree and won't change each other's minds, I'm just saying that I don't necessarily beleive at first glance what the government tell us.

Or, to just quote "The Man" Ronald Reagan: "Trust, But Verify."

 

[fit_fairy]

It depends on which statistic you look at.

Secretary Sebelius has clearly stated that there will be no change in coverage of mammograms. The public option (if there will be any) will NOT limit coverage of mammograms.

That reminds me of some words from another politician: "read my lips- no new taxes"

 

[hiitdogs]

Exactly! As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Sorry, I never should have quoted a statistic in the first place, they are really meaningless, therefore I can't trust the Prempro statistics or studies either.



Well, thank goodness a government official has promised us something, because we know they would never lie or distort the truth Or be over-ruled by another govt official later.

Suffice it to say, I do not trust the government one iota to make my healthcare decisons for me. This whole new recommendation is based soley on money, not because they give a rat's butt about what is best for our health.

Ahhhhh, but your insurance company works on purely humanitarian reasons and sincerely cares about your health regardless of their profits. I wonder who has more of an incentive to cover necessary procedure - a for profit company that pays millions of $$ to their CEO or a not-for-profit organisation.

 

[hiitdogs]

That reminds me of some words from another politician: "read my lips- no new taxes"

But he was from the other party

I don't think the screening will ever be changed, Cancer Inc is a multi billion $$ industry. No politician can afford to go against them. Read my lips

And there is way too many woman insisting that they want their mammograms, regardless of if it makes sense or if they put their health at risk. It would be political suicide trying to make a change.

 

[Govtgirl]

Hey I never said insurance companies were humanitarians! Holey moley gimme some credit! I totally understand that they are a business, businesses are out to make money, and the "greed" that they are accused of are the stockholders banging on them demanding profits. If anybody on this board has any kind of 401K or IRA that invests in large cap mutual funds, they are most likely part of the "evil insurance companies" that they detest. A tiny part, but a part nonetheless.

Oh, anyway, I am seriously not trying to argue here, really really really! I just betcha a miliion bucks that if the govt has any say about what procedures you can get, or if there is a private option, they won't cover screening under 50 years old, and they'll point to this study as reason why. Plus, other countries with social healthcare don't do it til then, and the US will probably follow in their footsteps.

So anyhoo, I am off to clean the house, make some pumpkin pie, and get ready for my family that's coming for Turkey Day.....YAY!!!

 

[hiitdogs]

Hey I never said insurance companies were humanitarians! Holey moley gimme some credit! I totally understand that they are a business, businesses are out to make money, and the "greed" that they are accused of are the stockholders banging on them demanding profits. If anybody on this board has any kind of 401K or IRA that invests in large cap mutual funds, they are most likely part of the "evil insurance companies" that they detest. A tiny part, but a part nonetheless.

Oh, anyway, I am seriously not trying to argue here, really really really! I just betcha a miliion bucks that if the govt has any say about what procedures you can get, or if there is a private option, they won't cover screening under 50 years old, and they'll point to this study as reason why. Plus, other countries with social healthcare don't do it til then, and the US will probably follow in their footsteps.

So anyhoo, I am off to clean the house, make some pumpkin pie, and get ready for my family that's coming for Turkey Day.....YAY!!!

What makes you think that it has something to do with "social healthcare" that some European countries don't recommend mammograms until 50? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that every time a woman does a mammogram she gets exposed to 1 rad. Do that yearly (that doesn't take into consideration any additional x-rays, CATscans or mammograms if something suspicious is found) from 40 to 70 years and they have an exposure of 30 rads. As a reference, the exposure of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 35 rads.

Of course, then the argument is made that it is not all at once. But most experts agree that exposure to radiation is cumulative.

More is not necessarily better.

I don't have anything against profits but if health insurance CEOs get $ 20 to 75 mio $$ year and people get denied health care despite of the fact that they have paid premiums for years there is something wrong with the picture.

I have seen the benefits of "socialized" medicine (where a public option and private insurance co-existed) and focusing on preventive care instead of prescribing pills for everything and I am really at a loss as to why people get so bent out of shape over "social medicine" and equate it with rationing.

Have a happy turkey day! I am going to have to finish some work, clean the house, buy food for dinner tomorrow and I don't have a clue of what I am going to make. Oy!!!

 

[dani21496]

Interesting...

I just turned 41 and haven't had one yet and I keep telling myself I need to schedule an appointment.

This is all so confusing.

 

[Ivy]

Mammograms

I do not want to start anything heated. I just want to say that every women has her opinion and right according to how she feels about her body. Maybe medicine is discovering after years of doing something in one way, regarding mammograms, that it wasn't the best way. How many times have we found out that there were things we were ingesting or doing to ourselves only to discover that it was not healthy. Again, this is up to each and every woman, every situation is different. My doctor told me several years ago that if my pap was negative one year, there is no need to get one the following year. She said unless something changed in my personal habits, it was unneccessary. Growing older I am discovering that these doctors are not god. They do what they do and we hope, they turn out right. I would think that sometimes medicine can change as knowledge grows. As the years go on I find that I must be my own best advocate and do a lot of research on particular subjects. I am a little peeved that no doctor informed me of the negative consequences of mammography, only the benefits. It is nice to hear all sides of the equation before making a decision on my health.