onlyadream
(821 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-21-09 05:24 PM
Original message |
New mamo & pap recommendations |
|
I find it too coincidental that the new mamo recommendations came out NOW, while the health reform bill is in Congress. Then, surprisingly, today another recommendation comes out regarding pap smears. In both cases, the recommendation is that women should WAIT, and test less frequently. EVEN IF these recommendations are based on solid studies and whatnot, WHY NOW?
|
Bitwit1234
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-21-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Back in the 70's you were not allowed to get a mammogram |
|
if you were in your 40's. They later changed it. But there has always been a warning that is it dangerous. And what upsets me is how painful it is. With all the modern techniques and machines. It is barbaric as to the fact that this has not changed one bit since the 70's.
|
FarCenter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-21-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. You'd think that they could build a specialized MRI machine |
|
Installed in a special clinic for high-volume use for mammograms, it might be less expensive and a whole lot better.
X-rays, wtih the risk of ionizing radiation, seem so primitive. Early 19th century technology. Of course, there are probably a lot of investments in the current scheme for giving and interpreting X-ray mammograms.
|
zazen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-21-09 05:37 PM
Response to Original message |
2. the recs have research behind them, but you're right about the weird timing n/t |
CTyankee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-21-09 05:43 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I have wondered if it is a plot to derail health care reform but then I get real. |
|
Perhaps it is only because we are so sensitive this time to it...maybe in years past these kinds of recommendations came out but nobody much cared.
It is unfortunate, whatever the cause.
|
Chemisse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-21-09 06:59 PM
Response to Original message |
4. They seem to be based mostly on cost - benefit |
|
And the suggestion that they often detect cells that may not actually require any action.
I read this morning that only 1 in 2000 women under 40 are saved by mammograms, while there are a number of positive results that cause anxiety when they have to do further testing. I found it odd that the anxiety of a handful of women was a worse outcome than the death of one.
If the problem is too strongly reacting to abnormalities, how about reacting to them differently? Take on a wait-and-see approach.
|
Kolesar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-21-09 07:09 PM
Response to Original message |
6. I doubt that the news release was "timed" for "political reasons" |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 07:58 PM
Response to Original message |