Skip to main content

View Diary: Mammography screening in the general population has been proven not to save lives (261 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  thanks for having the guts (6+ / 0-)

    to get in here and write about this.

    The whole point of separation of church and state was about protecting the people from the church. It wasn't about protecting churches.

    by mieprowan on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:37:23 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yea guts... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CMYK

      to ration women's healthcare.../snark

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:38:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yea... (0+ / 0-)

      one size fits all HCR...that is what I want.../snark

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:39:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But the new recommendations are not (6+ / 0-)

        'one size fits all'. They specifically say that women should talk to their doctors about their individual risk and decide whether to test based on that risk. This is actually far less 'one size fits all' than the blanket recommendation to have yearly mammograms beginning at age 40. I think it's important for us to develop trusting, honest relationships with our doctors, our families, and ourselves so we can assess our risk individually. These new recommendations seem to be moving in this direction and away from the generalized recommendations of the past.

        •  I understand that... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brooke In Seattle

          and that is good...but I am concerned that a report like this will be misused to deny coverage for screenings and disuade better screenings that have less false positives...

          Obama - Change I still believe in

          by dvogel001 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:44:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Mammograms aren't all that expensive (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mataliandy, nolakai

            we even have free mammography clinics in NYC. I'd be more concerned about getting the cancer treatments covered. Cancer drugs can cost a fortune.

            All my IP addresses have been banned from Redstate.com.

            by charliehall on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:50:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Given the sorry state of our health care 'reform' (4+ / 0-)

            coverage for mammograms may sadly be the least of our worries. There are often free mammogram screenings offered, at least in the urban areas I've lived in, which is good, especially for high risk women who do not have health insurance. But what do you do if you get a diagnosis and you're uninsured or your insurance company doesn't cover the treatment? I really wish we could have single-payer health care, but I suppose that's a rant for another day!

            •  Listen if you all want to give up... (0+ / 0-)

              your mammograms...we are done...there are no more mammograms for my wife to do...but I would strongly recommend against that...

              Obama - Change I still believe in

              by dvogel001 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:57:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think anyone is saying (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                churchylafemme, JanL

                to give up mammograms. They're just saying to be honest and open about your fears and concerns with your doctor so you can make the best decision for you. As it is right now, it is required that insurers cover mammograms in many states. I'm certain this will not change. Personally, I'm hoping that we're able to develop a safer, more effective test than the mammogram. That would be great. In the meantime, many women will be getting mammograms before 50 because they are higher risk or because they will be too anxious if they don't (or because their doctors recommend them). Mammograms do not prevent breast cancer nor do they cure it. Hopefully one day we will be able to prevent cancer in the first place. Until then, we're stuck with imperfect diagnostic tests. We need to develop healthy, honest relationships with our doctors and our bodies to make the best decisions for ourselves as individuals.

                I recently read about thermography, which is apparently more accurate and significantly safer than mammogram. Perhaps that will be the next, better test. That would be wonderful.

                •  Breast MRI with contrast... (3+ / 0-)

                  is the best...but currently very expensive $2500...expand that and get the cost down to $500 a pop and we will be all set...

                  Obama - Change I still believe in

                  by dvogel001 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:12:26 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Contrast dye? No thanks! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Charles CurtisStanley

                    Contrast dye is hard on the kidneys. Anybody with impaired kidney function should stay away from it, and I know at least one person who is on dialysis because of it. It's a lot more "expensive" physically than you apparently think it is. Radiation from mammograms may be hard on the body and cause more cancer, but if contrast dye is hard on the body and causes more kidney disease, you don't have a very good tradeoff.

                    Living kidney donor needed; type B, O, or incompatible (with paired donation). Drop me a note (see profile).

                    by Kitsap River on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 02:49:41 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How many 40 year olds... (0+ / 0-)

                      do you know with impaired kidney function???

                      My mom who has had a kidney transplant gets some MRI's (not breast) with contrast and they are very careful and flush her out with extra fluids as a precaution...and she is fine...(her kidneys failed as a result of 40 years of being a type I diabetic...)

                      Obama - Change I still believe in

                      by dvogel001 on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 06:46:28 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  As long as insurance companies don't use the (0+ / 0-)

          dubious recommendations to refuse coverage for those women who elect to get the screening. That seems to be the big issue. Mammograms do save the live of many women 40-49 every year.

          Poor women will be disproportionately affected by these recommendations, of course, as will women of color (their cancers tend to occur earlier than white womens'). And a trusting, honest relationship with a doctor is a luxury in this age of unemployment and poverty.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site