Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought I had read that they were now saying that mammograms may be done too early...i.e., 40 ? I don't know. I read and read and read to try and make an informed decision. I worry about having so many tests done, seemingly quite a few necessary for me, and the effects fo cumulative radiation. MRI's, CS's, ultrasounds, mammograms, Xrays.
Two years ago there is a massive stink about the new guidelines for mammograms. There was a huge backlash. Some group who is suggesting the PSA tests are unnecessary.
Two years ago there is a massive stink about the new guidelines for mammograms. There was a huge backlash. Some group who is suggesting the PSA tests are unnecessary.
I truly believe that the people that are advocating not getting tested have a hidden vested interest in saving money on the new health care system by delaying the tests until you are past a cure.... thus when you are detected that late, you are "Shovel Ready" and saves the program billions...
Now is when they want to start spreading the seeds of doubt... So that later on, people will except it as fact because they heard it repeatedly.
I'm an advocate of yearly, thorough physical exams and follow-up or special testing when suspicions warrant it. My M.D. suspected something was not right with my annual (post-50 y.o) PSA test results and sent me to a specialist and not only did the biopsy reveal the presence of cancer the prostate which was removed was more than 20% consumed by cancer. The cancer had not spread beyond the prostate and after 3-years the assumptions are that the surgeon got it all out. I suspected something was wrong when I was having what may have been acid refulx that came and went and my M.D. sent me for a stress test and then an angiogram - and what resulted was the discovery of the 90% blockage of two arteries and 60% at another point and two stents were inserted. Both early interventions will probably result in my living longer and having a better quality of life. Yea, I'm an advocate for testing.
I thought I had read that they were now saying that mammograms may be done too early...i.e., 40 ? I don't know. I read and read and read to try and make an informed decision. I worry about having so many tests done, seemingly quite a few necessary for me, and the effects fo cumulative radiation. MRI's, CS's, ultrasounds, mammograms, Xrays.
Annie, I think you are doing the right thing just by reading and trying to inform yourself of the facts.
Of course preventative medicine is very important. Tests of all sorts have a valuable place in healthcare. So do drugs.
I think one of the most important aspects of self-healthcare is education.
I (especially as a woman) am really glad that I did not blindly follow a former practitioner's advice to get on statins.
There is no doubt in my mind that over-testing, over-prescribing and over-diagnosis exists. However, doing "nothing" makes us feel as if we have no control.
Wending our way through the maze of what to do and what not to do is not easy.
Btw:
The National Cancer Institute says women 40 and over should get mammograms every 1 to 2 years.
The Center for Disease Control says women should get mammograms every 2 years, beginning at age 50, unless there is a family background of breast cancer--then you should talk to your healthcare professional.
Knowing many women with no history of cancer in their family to get breast cancer in their 30s, and even a few in their 20s, I will absolutely not be following the guidelines.
Annie, I think you are doing the right thing just by reading and trying to inform yourself of the facts.
Of course preventative medicine is very important. Tests of all sorts have a valuable place in healthcare. So do drugs.
I think one of the most important aspects of self-healthcare is education.
I (especially as a woman) am really glad that I did not blindly follow a former practitioner's advice to get on statins.
There is no doubt in my mind that over-testing, over-prescribing and over-diagnosis exists. However, doing "nothing" makes us feel as if we have no control.
Wending our way through the maze of what to do and what not to do is not easy.
Btw:
The National Cancer Institute says women 40 and over should get mammograms every 1 to 2 years.
The Center for Disease Control says women should get mammograms every 2 years, beginning at age 50, unless there is a family background of breast cancer--then you should talk to your healthcare professional.
I love the contradictions in your statements. You advocate preventive medicine and next paragraph you state "over-testing, over prescribing and over diagnosis" What is "over diagnosis?" And the overt contradictions are absurd.
I love the contradictions in your statements. You advocate preventive medicine and next paragraph you state "over-testing, over prescribing and over diagnosis" What is "over diagnosis?" And the overt contradictions are absurd.
SD, ever hear of the term "paradox"?
Of course I advocate preventative medicine. Why shouldn't I?
When preventative medicine is accompanied with a responsible health care provider and an informed patient, it is a powerful, meaningful tool.
I agree that the contradictions are absurd, but that's how healthcare is today.
In the over diagnosis article, they report that there were 62 fewer deaths from breast cancer and 115 women overdiagnosed—a ratio of one death avoided to two women overdiagnosed.
Here is one example of over diagnosis: Over diagnosis and mammography screening Overdiagnosis of cancer occurs when the cancer grows so slowly that the patient dies of other causes before it produces symptoms or when the cancer remains dormant (or regresses).
Finally, this is in the City Data Terms of Service: We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker of the idea. Be careful with your words, there is a point where being direct crosses a line into blunt, in-your-face hostility.
I realize that this is a Cancer forum and people affected with it are participating. That doesn't mean you get to be a jerk simply because you disagree with what someone says. That kind of stuff ran rampant in the PSA testing thread, and now it begins here.
Of course I advocate preventative medicine. Why shouldn't I?
When preventative medicine is accompanied with a responsible health care provider and an informed patient, it is a powerful, meaningful tool.
I agree that the contradictions are absurd, but that's how healthcare is today.
In the over diagnosis article, they report that there were 62 fewer deaths from breast cancer and 115 women overdiagnosed—a ratio of one death avoided to two women overdiagnosed.
Here is one example of over diagnosis: Over diagnosis and mammography screening Overdiagnosis of cancer occurs when the cancer grows so slowly that the patient dies of other causes before it produces symptoms or when the cancer remains dormant (or regresses).
Finally, this is in the City Data Terms of Service: We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker of the idea. Be careful with your words, there is a point where being direct crosses a line into blunt, in-your-face hostility.
I realize that this is a Cancer forum and people affected with it are participating. That doesn't mean you get to be a jerk simply because you disagree with what someone says. That kind of stuff ran rampant in the PSA testing thread, and now it begins here.
First of all I am not sure how or why my rebuttal to your post would be hostile or in your face? Not sure how your call my a jerk for adamantly disagreeing with your views is being a jerk. Furthermore you feeling incumbent to discuss moderator actions or to take moderator actions into your own hands crosses the line you accuse me of doing.
You want to throw around paradox. That would be appropriate in this applications especially the terms:
Quote:
paradox [par-uh-doks]
Example Sentences Origin
par·a·dox [par-uh-doks] Show IPA
noun
1.a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth. 2.a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3.any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature. 4.an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.
We apply the paradox test to your posts. And definitions 2 and 4 are evident in your statements.
The article you linked was not peer reviewed. It is actually well referenced which is surprising around this section.
Doctors don't base their diagnosis solely on the results of a mammogram if there is something that raises suspicions to the radiologist they will report their findings. So the next logical step is a biopsy of the suspect cells... That is what is used to make a decisions. Now if there wasn't mammograms there really wouldn't be early detection. No one would go in for a yearly biopsy... And where would you biopsy? if you noticed a pain or a lump would it be advanced enough or spread to other parts of the body that the cancer wouldn't be controllable or even curable.
Cancer is fickle enough that no one can predict spread and rate of cancer spread. So if you elect defer mammograms that is your own body and your own decision. However it is asinine to suggest that to someone else. You attempted to do that in the PSA threads and now this thread.
Ladies make your own informed decisions. There are cases of breast cancer being discovered in younger women. There are cases where women in their 30 having trouble seeking mammograms. I can think of a case where a women who was 36 was diagnosed with breast cancer and have to fight the doctor to obtain the first mammogram. Which when you think about applies paradoxically against your statements. I'd hardly call such cases overdiagnosis.
One of my closest friends (who I met through the young adult cancer community) was diagnosed with Stage III breast cancer at 29. Her lump was not palpable to her and she felt fine - it was only discovered by her doctor during a physical. She had to fight to get a mammogram and it took 2 months. Who knows how much the cancer spread in that time. She had a double masectomy on her 30th birthday. No family history.
Another friend is battling her 3rd recurrence of breast cancer. She's 32. Her first battle was when she was 25. No family history of breast cancer, though she was diagnosed the first time while both of her parents were fighting their own cancers (dad with prostate cancer, mom with colon cancer).
And there's more where that comes from, but getting breast cancer in your 30s is so common that it doesn't warrant a conversation.
In the young adult cancer community, we are overwhelmingly caught at late stages because of encouraging less and less testing. My cancer could have been caught at Stage I and been 95% curable. Instead it was caught at Stage IV and I only have a 70% 5 year survival rate - and I'm only 23 and have absolutely ZERO family history of cancer. Don't put off testing. By the time you have symptoms, most cancers have already spread.
One of my closest friends (who I met through the young adult cancer community) was diagnosed with Stage III breast cancer at 29. Her lump was not palpable to her and she felt fine - it was only discovered by her doctor during a physical. She had to fight to get a mammogram and it took 2 months. Who knows how much the cancer spread in that time. She had a double masectomy on her 30th birthday. No family history.
Another friend is battling her 3rd recurrence of breast cancer. She's 32. Her first battle was when she was 25. No family history of breast cancer, though she was diagnosed the first time while both of her parents were fighting their own cancers (dad with prostate cancer, mom with colon cancer).
And there's more where that comes from, but getting breast cancer in your 30s is so common that it doesn't warrant a conversation.
In the young adult cancer community, we are overwhelmingly caught at late stages because of encouraging less and less testing. My cancer could have been caught at Stage I and been 95% curable. Instead it was caught at Stage IV and I only have a 70% 5 year survival rate - and I'm only 23 and have absolutely ZERO family history of cancer. Don't put off testing. By the time you have symptoms, most cancers have already spread.
I couldn't agree more. We don't do nearly enough about promoting wellness, preventing diseases or diagnostic testing. And Charolastra00 is absolutely right that the young adults have the biggest problem in that they are "too young" to qualify for the preventative testing that is so very important.
From an economic standpoint, the cost of healthcare would decrease significantly if we could prevent disease or treat it at it's earliest stages. From a humanistic standpoint, the improvement in our general well-being would be immeasurable.
As far as this discussion is concerned, my feelings are simple. If you don't believe in being tested, then that's your business. Don't be tested. But please don't try to justify for the rest of us why we should avoid testing that could very well save our lives. I'm a cancer survivor and now I've gone through almost three years of pain and trouble to get where I am. If I can help someone else avoid what I'm experiencing by urging them to avail themselves of preventative testing, then that's exactly what I should be doing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
