FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
http://skepchick.org/blog/2009/11/n...ncer-guidelines-arent-patronizing/#more-10537
No, Ladies, the New Breast Cancer Guidelines Aren’t Patronizing
November 18th, 2009 by Rebecca · 38 Comments
A US government task force recently came out with new guidelines for breast cancer screening, suggesting that women shouldn’t bother getting checked until the age of 50. The American Cancer Society currently recommends women start screening at 40.
Feministing reported this as “New patronizing guidelines for mammograms have been implemented by a government task force, recommending that women over 40 shouldn’t get routine mammograms because of certain risks like women’s “anxiety,”" which made me sigh sadly, because it is bullshit.
They link to Feminist Law Professors, who writes this about the subject:
A government task force claims that women don’t need to have routine screening for breast cancer until age 50.
No. The task force recommends that most women don’t need it until the age of 50, but stipulates that “The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.” In other words, if you have risk factors, then your doctor may recommend you begin earlier.
But the American Cancer Society recommends routine mammograms for women 40 and over.
The ACS’s guidelines are twenty years old. The task force’s recommendation was just released, based on updated data and learning from the past 20 years. As a side note, the ACS does not recommend self-examination, and the World Health Organization recommends beginning screenings at age 50.
The government task force’s reasoning? Because the “anxieties” caused by mammography, false positives and biopsies do not decrease mortality.
Interesting that those are listed in the reverse order of their relative importance. The basic fact of the matter is that current evidence shows that we do not save more lives by screening all women before the age of 50. These screenings only contribute to more false positives, which in turn causes an incredible amount of anxiety. Have you ever been told you have cancer? Kind of upsetting, I’d imagine.
If the federal government is so concerned about women’s anxieties, how about more jobs, affordable child care, lower tax rates, clean air to breathe, and an end to discrimination?
Okay, sure. This panel of doctors will immediately stop trying to improve lives and safeguard women’s health and immediately get going on lowering your taxes. That’s a red herring, in which completely unrelated issues are introduced in order to distract from the issue at hand.
I can control my own anxiety about having my breast squished by a mammography machine, thank you.
It should be quite clear by now that the anxiety doesn’t come from the inconvenience and pain of the mammography machine, but in being told you have cancer when you do not.
The first commenter at FLP says:
To answer CD, the vice chair of the task force is quoted in the AP article:
So, kudos to the Feministing crowd for sticking up for evidence-based medicine in the comments section. Hopefully, that kind of rational thinking will influence future posts on women’s health.
No, Ladies, the New Breast Cancer Guidelines Aren’t Patronizing
November 18th, 2009 by Rebecca · 38 Comments
Feministing reported this as “New patronizing guidelines for mammograms have been implemented by a government task force, recommending that women over 40 shouldn’t get routine mammograms because of certain risks like women’s “anxiety,”" which made me sigh sadly, because it is bullshit.
They link to Feminist Law Professors, who writes this about the subject:
A government task force claims that women don’t need to have routine screening for breast cancer until age 50. (See the AP story here.) But the American Cancer Society recommends routine mammograms for women 40 and over.
The government task force’s reasoning? Because the “anxieties” caused by mammography, false positives and biopsies do not decrease mortality.
If the federal government is so concerned about women’s anxieties, how about more jobs, affordable child care, lower tax rates, clean air to breathe, and an end to discrimination?
I can control my own anxiety about having my breast squished by a mammography machine, thank you.
The commenters at Feministing quickly jumped in to correct the original poster, but at FLP things only got sillier. Because these are usually good sources of intelligent information, I wanted to post this to reassure women who might be thinking along similar lines: these guidelines are not patronizing and they are based upon real data that suggest women will be better off this way. Here are a few points to bear in mind:The government task force’s reasoning? Because the “anxieties” caused by mammography, false positives and biopsies do not decrease mortality.
If the federal government is so concerned about women’s anxieties, how about more jobs, affordable child care, lower tax rates, clean air to breathe, and an end to discrimination?
I can control my own anxiety about having my breast squished by a mammography machine, thank you.
A government task force claims that women don’t need to have routine screening for breast cancer until age 50.
No. The task force recommends that most women don’t need it until the age of 50, but stipulates that “The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.” In other words, if you have risk factors, then your doctor may recommend you begin earlier.
But the American Cancer Society recommends routine mammograms for women 40 and over.
The ACS’s guidelines are twenty years old. The task force’s recommendation was just released, based on updated data and learning from the past 20 years. As a side note, the ACS does not recommend self-examination, and the World Health Organization recommends beginning screenings at age 50.
The government task force’s reasoning? Because the “anxieties” caused by mammography, false positives and biopsies do not decrease mortality.
Interesting that those are listed in the reverse order of their relative importance. The basic fact of the matter is that current evidence shows that we do not save more lives by screening all women before the age of 50. These screenings only contribute to more false positives, which in turn causes an incredible amount of anxiety. Have you ever been told you have cancer? Kind of upsetting, I’d imagine.
If the federal government is so concerned about women’s anxieties, how about more jobs, affordable child care, lower tax rates, clean air to breathe, and an end to discrimination?
Okay, sure. This panel of doctors will immediately stop trying to improve lives and safeguard women’s health and immediately get going on lowering your taxes. That’s a red herring, in which completely unrelated issues are introduced in order to distract from the issue at hand.
I can control my own anxiety about having my breast squished by a mammography machine, thank you.
It should be quite clear by now that the anxiety doesn’t come from the inconvenience and pain of the mammography machine, but in being told you have cancer when you do not.
The first commenter at FLP says:
Just who is this government task force? Probably a bunch of men… Why havent they given the people an updated stating that men should only be screened for testicular cancer when they turn 50?
CD Dorsey
Obviously, CD didn’t bother to actually read the linked article or do the slightest bit of research, which is exactly why I’m writing this post. So many people read something online and immediately believe whatever it is, not even pausing long enough to click a link. To those of you who are reading this right now, please do not believe me. Click the links. Thanks.CD Dorsey
To answer CD, the vice chair of the task force is quoted in the AP article:
“The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s,” said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.
I’m going to guess Diana is a woman. Of course you could always visit the web site of the US Preventative Services Task Force to see that at least 8 out of 16 members are women (I’m not including one “Sandy” who could be a man or a woman), but that took all of 30 seconds so I can see how one would shy from doing that.
So, kudos to the Feministing crowd for sticking up for evidence-based medicine in the comments section. Hopefully, that kind of rational thinking will influence future posts on women’s health.
