Mammogram backlash is about mistrust--Ellen Goodman

[Louisiana1976]

Is there such a thing as communications malpractice? If so, we might consider the case of Women v. the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

I’m not talking about medical malpractice. The scientists who surveyed the mammogram studies did their job honorably. They looked at research that has slowly and without a lot of fanfare questioned the value of routine mammograms for women in their 40s without other risk factors. They concluded—as had others before them—that the benefits from screening younger women were oversold and the risks were undersold.

They went on to recommend that women start having mammograms at 50 and then have them every other year instead of annually. But then they dropped these guidelines onto an unprepared public like leaflets from a helicopter of experts who didn’t understand the conditions on the ground.

There was something charming about the innocence of the independent task force. Did the scientists assume the public would just accept the information as given? Or, should I say, as revised? Anyone who has spent time in a waiting room with women taught to equate early detection with prevention could have warned them.

snip

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/mammogram_backlash_is_about_mistrust_20091125/?ln

[Warpy]

1. They only talked about taking something away

that women were told would save lives. They didn't talk about decreasing risk from repeated doses of radiation that could conceivably cause more cancers, and they should have.

Still, physicians have the leeway to order early mammograms for women with a strong family history of early breast cancer.

The people to worry about are insurance companies, who will now piss and moan about paying for them for any woman under 50, no matter her risk.

And I think that's the real reason for the backlash. We know what those bloodless bastards peering at their actuarial tables will do: refuse them for everyone under 50 and drop coverage completely on everyone over 50.

[Berry Cool]

2. They should have delivered the message realizing it wouldn't sit well with many women

who have been deceived by years and years of public-service messages telling them "early detection = cure" or "early detection = prevention." That was a lie all along, but few people in the general public know it; usually, you have to be a member of the medical establishment or a person who has had breast cancer or been close to someone with it to have heard any other message, and sometimes even then you don't really hear it.

What women and their doctors think is the right level of screening for an individual patient is still up to them. That's not changing.

I'm not so sure that the "bloodless bastards" will refuse now to cover mammograms for under-50s. How can they, when the physician of an individual woman recommends one? I do see some trouble for younger women who are concerned about a lump and need to talk their physicians into being equally concerned, but that's about it.

And how can they drop coverage completely on everyone over 50? Is having breasts now going to be considered a "preexisting condition"?

[Warpy]

3. I take an incredibly dim view of for profit insurance

since they haven't been playing fair with women all along and now aren't playing fair with anyone. Look at what they do about pregnancy coverage, require a woman to purchase a family policy for three times the individual rate before she gets pregnant to be covered. That's just wrong. The family policy should be purchased close to birth, when there's another person to cover. Pregnancy and prenatal care need to be covered from the beginning on an individual policy. They also routinely cover Viagra but deny coverage for hormonal birth control.

If there is a way to weasel out of covering care for any of our icky female parts, they will do it.

Being female is a pre existing condition to them. Check the fine print on your own insurance policy if you don't believe it.

[Enthusiast]

7. I'll join you in

that 'incredibly dim view' of for profit insurance.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. I refuse to have mammograms - I stick to thermography

Thermography is far more accurate, it's diagnosed by a pathologist, it's got ZERO radiation (unlike mammograms, scans, etc.), and it can be a far better predictor of problematic or suspicious breast conditions than anything else.

However, Kodak has a really good situation going and they are not about to lose that. Aren't they the world's #1 makers of mammogram equipment?

[KoKo]

6. I think GE and Siemans have the market for the machines...

Maybe the film is Kodak.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. So there we are: the real pushers of mammograms

That's the only reason thermograms don't have a chance, tho they're safer, better, more accurate, more predictive, and nothing has to be smashed, PLUS it also analyzes the heart for free.

[KoKo]

12. Yes...in some respects..GE was a huge donor to Obama..CEO is on Guest List for WA Insiders.

I think it's good that GE found a way to do "deep x-rays" thinking they would help so many...but then the Insurance Industry and the Rest...managed to co-opt and build on that...so it got "Outta Hand?" :shrug:

Whatever...we don't need to be subjecting our daughters and the rest of us to undo Tests...

[Alcibiades]

5. Mammograms are popular

despite the fact that they are basically a form of torture, for one reason: they give women the illusion of control. You get your screening, and nothing bad can happen to you. Then, if you're a Republican, you can feel good about yourself and also condemn sick people, because it's clear that they didn't take the wise precautions you did.

Until one day, you get sick.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. Thermograms are a better diagnostic tool, doesn't smash, and it's interpreted by a

pathologist. I think it's Siemens, Kodak, and the other makers of mammogram equipment that are giving doctors, clinics and hospitals kickbacks, which are pushing the mammogram. Thermography gives women far more control and it's not humiliating, nor does it irradiate or do damage when pressing the breast, since no pressing at all is required.

[Alcibiades]

10. Someone said in an earlier thread

that, if you actually have a tumor, squeezing it is is THE WORST THING you can do.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. I've heard that, yes. If you have a tumor, you are essentially breaking it up and

loosening it so it goes into the bloodstream and spreads. Not too bright a thing for the medical community to be doing.

[KoKo]

13. Same thing could be said of Biopsy...releases errant cancer cells into surrounding tissue.

However, to be fair, there are some new drugs/chemo that work against this.

Still...it's worth watching.