Click here to visit the Beauty Brains blog.
Welcome to the new Forum. Please feel free to start a new discussion.
What do you think of the new guidelines on mammograms for women under 50?
  • Left BrainLeft Brain
    We received an email from a PR company with the following facts.  They are trying to raise money for breast cancer research and awareness.  http://www.komen-nashville.org/

    Mammograms save lives: THERE IS NO DOUBT


    Mammograms save lives in women 40 to 49 and over 50: THERE IS NO DOUBT


    One-third of women are not being screened due to lack of access, education or awareness: THERE IS NO DOUBT

    But the scientists & doctors who have reviewed the peer reviewed scientific data have concluded that there is no benefit to testing women from ages 40 - 49 and are recommending tests at 50 and above.
    So, do you put your faith in science or something else?
    The thing I find interesting about this list of facts is that it seems that it would also be true that Mammograms save lives in women 30 - 39.  And probably even women from 20 - 29. 
    Shouldn't we then advocate giving mammograms to every women every year?
  • JamiSingsJamiSings
    It's hard to decide. On one side - science is a creation of humans and human beings make mistakes all the time. We are not perfect. Young women can and do get breast cancer. So it's got to be better to scan them young rather then having to go through massive surgeries later.
    On the other hand, sometimes scientists are right. It's just that there's always that exception to the rule.
    Since I believe in better safe then sorry, I think everyone should start having screenings every year. Even men, who do get breast cancer too!
  • ekd45
    I think we should be advocating giving mammograms to every woman every year, because as JamiSings said, science can be wrong, and if you ask me it is wrong more often than not. It may be costly to test all age groups of women, but until there are solid facts out there that say there is no need to test women under the age of 40, I think they should still be tested
  • Janis
    Agreed -- the problem with going on statistics is that .. well, statistically, 90% of women will NEVER get breast cancer, so why not stops creening altogether at that point?

    It's because even that 10% is unacceptable. PERIOD. The new guidelines SUCK. Women who will get breast cancer are already a small minority of women, so they can take their statistical argument and shove it where the sun don't shine. The whole point of screening is to drop that number as far as possible, and if starting screening ten years earlier will help, then YOU DO IT. And anyone who gives me the money argument is full of it. The whole reason we're trying (and failing) to manage health care in this country is because we think of the bottom-line profits in the first place. "Profit" in health care means A SAVED LIFE.

    Off my soapbox.
  • disablingmercury
    If insurance companies will cover it every year starting early, the yes, I'd have it done. If it was reasonably priced without insurance, I'd probably have it done. But I know some people have a hard enough time getting their insurance to cover their basic yearly exams (!!!). My mum's insurance won't cover her yearly exam, even though she was pre-cervical cancer, because she had a hysterectomy. SHE CAN STILL DEVELOP CANCER! The hysterectomy just greatly reduces the chances of that happening. I really have a love/hate relationship with insurance. Some is better than none, though. I think I got a little off topic. Oh well.

    And Janis, I agree. Health care should be about saving lives, not about money. That really shouldn't even be a factor.
  • Curses
    I'd have to see the actual papers, first. Do they mean there's no healthcare savings? That screening women in that cohort doesn't alleviate mortality? Did they just not see as many tumors or pre-cancerous growths in the 40-49 group? How did they run their stats? How did they design the studies? It seems to me that the 50+ group probably has the largest data pool, since many more women of that age routinely get mammograms. Maybe the younger women are getting mammograms because they already have predispositions to breast cancer, throwing off the stats. I love epidemiology, but it's not perfect. I find it hard to imagine that for 10 years a woman's risk of breast cancer magically decreases.
  • PurpleRulesPurpleRules
    There are women who are known to be at a higher risk for breast cancer than others. It seems reasonable for them to start screening them at an earlier age than woman at a lower or average risk.  As long as those women are covered, I'm okay with changing the guidelines. In the interest of full disclosure, I absolutely loathe having a mammogram and am looking for any excuse to avoid having one.
    The timing on this was very bad. After a summer of listening to the proponents of health care reform tell us that national healthcare won't mean rationing health care, we're told that the government wants to eliminate routine mammograms for women under 50. I realize that the two are unrelated but people will still use this as an argument against reform.
     
Add a Comment