Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Celebration

(15,812 posts)
Wed May 1, 2013, 10:21 AM May 2013

Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/our-feel-good-war-on-breast-cancer.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&

Recently, a survey of three decades of screening published in November in The New England Journal of Medicine found that mammography’s impact is decidedly mixed: it does reduce, by a small percentage, the number of women who are told they have late-stage cancer, but it is far more likely to result in overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment, including surgery, weeks of radiation and potentially toxic drugs. And yet, mammography remains an unquestioned pillar of the pink-ribbon awareness movement. Just about everywhere I go — the supermarket, the dry cleaner, the gym, the gas pump, the movie theater, the airport, the florist, the bank, the mall — I see posters proclaiming that “early detection is the best protection” and “mammograms save lives.” But how many lives, exactly, are being “saved,” under what circumstances and at what cost? Raising the public profile of breast cancer, a disease once spoken of only in whispers, was at one time critically important, as was emphasizing the benefits of screening. But there are unintended consequences to ever-greater “awareness” — and they, too, affect women’s health.


I'm female, never liked the color pink, and am decidedly sick of it now.
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Nay

(12,051 posts)
1. I think it saved my life; my breast cancer was detected by a mammogram when it was still
Wed May 1, 2013, 10:31 AM
May 2013

a Stage I, so I had some minimal surgery and 16 days of radiation. If I had not had my yearly mammogram, I would never have known that soon.

Celebration

(15,812 posts)
2. read the article, it is enlightening
Wed May 1, 2013, 11:25 AM
May 2013

The author of it originally felt the same way.....................now she doesn't.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
3. It's a mini-max problem, we always have trouble with those.
Wed May 1, 2013, 11:36 AM
May 2013

When does the treatment become more of a problem than the problem?

hedgehog

(36,286 posts)
4. Wow! Thank you for that article! It answers a lot of questions I've had, and confirmed
Wed May 1, 2013, 03:49 PM
May 2013

a lot of my own speculations.

My mother had a mastectomy at age 80. She's had several lumpectomies over the years - she was very private so I am unsure of the details. Did she ever really need surgery? Did she really need the mastectomy, something she dreaded ever since nurse's training in the 50's? Did the physical and emotional stress of that operation actually shorten her life? (She passed on two years later.) I will never know.

I myself had 3 chest x-rays over the last year for lung problems. I think I will avoid any more radiation.

mopinko

(70,112 posts)
6. i think this analysis is completely bass-ackwards.
Sat May 4, 2013, 08:45 PM
May 2013

what it should be called is-
all the amazing shit we didn't know about breast cancer until we started widespread screening for breast cancer.

mopinko

(70,112 posts)
8. those things are not retroactive.
Sat May 4, 2013, 09:09 PM
May 2013

this writer seems to think that we should have already known the things we have learned.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Health»Our Feel-Good War on Brea...