Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US News: Women in Their 40s Ponder Whether to Skip the Mammogram

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Berry Cool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 05:48 PM
Original message
US News: Women in Their 40s Ponder Whether to Skip the Mammogram
I post a link to this article because it quotes breast expert Dr. Susan Love on the topic, and her opinions are the ones I have most recently been receiving from the medical experts I have dealt with regarding medical advice for myself. I know they are not popular in a world in which we are still blasted with the message "Early detection saves lives!," or on a forum where we are inclined to assume any advice given to us to cut back on medical diagnostic screening is an Evil Plan By The Greedy Health Insurance Companies To Screw Us Out of Our Health Care. But this is what I have been told, and it's the advice I'm sticking with until it's proven otherwise.

Of course, your decision on mammograms may vary based on your age and family history. But really...that's the point.

Read the whole article; it's worth it. It adds more light to the topic than heat.

http://health.usnews.com/blogs/on-women/2009/11/17/women-in-their-40s-ponder-whether-to-skip-the-mammogram.html

I called Susan Love, a breast surgeon and clinical professor of surgery at the University of California-Los Angeles medical school who is trying to recruit a million women for research trials to find the cause of breast cancer. I asked her: Do you think I should skip a mammogram when I turn 40?

Yes, she tells me, provided I am not at a higher-than-average risk of getting the disease...I ask Love to make the case for why I should feel comfortable delaying mammograms until I'm 50....

Love tells me I have to alter the preconceived notions about cancer that have been drummed into my head during 18 years as a health journalist. "One of the things that gets confused is that finding cancers isn't the same thing as changing the outcome," she says. "You can find cancer and not make a difference in whether a person is going to live or die."...

Love says there's also some evidence that the accumulation of radiation from yearly mammograms may actually cause some breast cancers.

...She also agrees that formal breast self-exams are a waste of time--though women should see their doctors if they suddenly feel a lump or thickening that wasn't there before while, say, soaping up in the shower or taking off their bra. And while clinical breast exams shouldn't fall by the wayside, she says the latest research on breast cancer suggests that the biology of the tumor, whether it's aggressive or mild, may be the most important factor in determining a woman's survival. (emphasis mine)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kimmerspixelated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Isn't Thermmography the best new alternative way?
No radiation, no squashing of the boobs, better false-positive ratio. Problem is there are not that many clinics. One might have to drive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnceUponTimeOnTheNet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-17-09 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, it's day later after this report was released, and I can see the sense
of some of this. But I'm not clear on the lump thing, will mammograms be recommended for people who have a sudden lumps turn up? In their 30's or 40's? or some kind of other imaging tool?

And i want to note, this is the first time I have seen the following statement in an official capacity.

"Love says there's also some evidence that the accumulation of radiation from yearly mammograms may actually cause some breast cancers"

also...

"some of the cancers diagnosed aren't life-threatening and might actually vanish on their own without treatment"

Cancer can vanish? Really? is this SNL?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Berry Cool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Cancer cells DO vanish. They can stop and get reabsorbed by the body.
Really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC