> Where did that come from? We do know women get breast cancer before 40 > so why tell them not to test even with a history and not to self exam. > As Mo has stated the insurance industry that's paying for it are > pushing it more now. >
I don't think the recommendation applies to women with a family history of early breast cancer. They are out there, that's true. I am very certain nobody is telling anyone to not to self exam. They are saying that routine mammograms may not be a good idea as early as 40. It's not a real pleasant test, you know. I have seen worse, but... I'd just as soon have missed the last few totally normal mammograms, for which there was no indication. I am not sure I agree with the call, but it's not a "death panel" for crying out loud. Are you predicting mammograms will cause cancer? Or, should we just > stop all screening test because one day they might be determined to > cause more harm than good? > Mammograms are Xrays. All Xrays increase the risk of cancer a little (a lot in the case of CAT scans). This is not a reason not to get one if the Xray or CAT scan will probably provide useful information. It is a good reason not to get one just to get one. Useful information is the heart of the matter. Amount of good it might do vs amount of harm it might do. Cost-benefit analysis, so who's life is worth saving > Cost-benefit analysis, see above. What you're missing is that that they calculate this from the patient's point of view, not society's. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:309728 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
