In the stories reported by major news organizations all across the US, there have been countless quotes that make wild, unsubstantiated charges about the motivation behind the US Preventive Services Task Force’s breast screening recommendations.
A quote in a New York Times story yesterday:
“Why all of a sudden this change?” said Karen Sun, 41, who was loading her groceries into her car here in Los Angeles. “It feels out of nowhere.”
It’s not all of a sudden and out of nowhere.
As the Washington Post led with in their story, this has been a decades-long debate. What we have seen in the past 3 days is akin to what happened with the uproar 12 years ago after a NIH Consensus Conference on this issue made a concluding statement that many women – and their politicians – disagreed with.
In an ugly clash between science and politics, confusion reigned.
And now it’s happening again.
From the LA Times:
Some Republicans jumped on the report as the kind of government intervention in medical decisions that Obama’s healthcare plan would bring.
“This is really the first step toward that business of rationing care based on cost,” said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), a physician.
Where is the evidence for that? That is fear-mongering rhetoric.
In the Washington Post:
“We can’t allow the insurance industry to continue to drive health-care decisions,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who said earlier this year that she had undergone treatment for breast cancer.
Wasserman-Schultz, whose legislation promoting breast cancer education in young women was widely criticized by evidence-based experts, should be forced to produce evidence for her claim as well.
And on ABC last night, a physician was allowed to say – unchallenged – that mammograms pick up early cancers when they need less treatment. If anecdotes are going to rule the day, then that physician should have to counter the anecdotes I’ve heard from women whose early DCIS or ductal carcinoma in situ – often called “pre-malignant” or “pre-cancerous” – was picked up by mammograms. And the range of treatment options then thrown at them – as aggressive as prophylatic bilateral mastectomy – left the DCIS-diagnosed to wish that they had actually received a diagnosis of invasive cancer because the choices were easier and more clear cut. These are real stories I heard from real women. The story – the discussion – isn’t complete without taking into account the experiences of women like that.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like