The only one WHO sees this as sexist? Probably not. Someone is bound to complain about the lack of male representation. Seriously though, unclench yourself a little. It's a clever way to get across an extremely important message for women. Breast cancer is rampant. My wife discovered hers in October.
They tried to do a similar commercial for men, but testicular cancer just isn't common enough, and when they tried it with prostate... the results were deemed too disturbing.
Couldn't find a definition of sexism under which this could possibly qualify. I know it's a common mistake in our(?) society to call anything that is sexual sexist, racial racist, or furry furry. It's a mistake that I try to avoid although it's delicate if everyone else isn't on the same page.
My Bride was going to skip her mammogram this year but for some reason she got it anyway. After a tiny lump, too small to feel, was found a biopsy was done. She has malignant breast cancer and is having surgery in two days. Odds are she will make a full recovery. I'm glad I didn't lose her and that she's going to be alright. Here's what she said about the commercial:
"That's funny! Email the url to me! I want to send that to my friends to keep encouraging them to get their mammograms!"
Oh, if only the dreaded exam-o-gram was this painless & fun. Wonderful clip! Thanx, Mark -- sending it out to a couple of Gyno-American friends who still resist....
from 40-50, 1900 women have to be screened (regularly, for the entire period) in order to save one life. that number is half as large for 50+.
Add to that the potential for overdiagnosis. lots of BCIS, breast carcinoma in situ, will not progress to malignant cancer, but there's the better-safe-than-sorry thinking at work too, which is obviously understandable.
we're now learning that lots of smaller cancers are not necessarily going to progress, and may be handled by the body's immune system without trouble given time. lots of smaller tumors are also very slow growing, and earlier detection by a year or even five years will not NECESSARILY contribute to better outcomes. and then, the fast growing tumors that are really lethal are quite likely to kill you before you go have another regular screening, if you come down with one.
the fear of cancer contributes a lot to the anxiety associated with that diagnosis, and drives a lot of increased spending on treatment when what is most needed is more research on the biochemical markers that define malignancy.
better prevention is more effective overall than more regular screening. basically, it should be a personal choice, but I think it's irresponsible to promote a clearly wasteful use of resources that could be more effectively put towards programs that are far more effective, like vaccination for instance.
To hop on a little soap box, though, one of the best preventatives of breast cancer (if not the best) is kept quiet because because it conflicts with the pervasive consumerism in modern society. It's much easier to just use technology to detect it once it's developed.
The ad is funny and misleading. One wouldn't recommend to those women to make a mammogramm because they are too young (the quality of the mammogramm from women that age probably is too bad to be of much use) and because the tissue of younger women is more susceptible to radiation.
spcfgt - My girlfriend's law firm is currently fighting a human rights case against the government of Canada based upon the fact that screening tests for breast cancer are fully covered whereas certain screening tests for prostrate cancer are not. Part of the difficulty in raising awareness of the issue is precisely because breasts are "happy and fun" and people are generally pleased to talk about them. The prostrate? Not so much.
1. To put or throw flat with the face down, as in submission or adoration: "He did not simply sit and meditate, he also knelt down, sometimes even prostrated himself" (Iris Murdoch).
2. To cause to lie flat: The wind prostrated the young trees.
3. To reduce to extreme weakness or incapacitation; overcome: an illness that prostrated an entire family; a nation that was prostrated by years of civil war.
adj.
1. Lying face down, as in submission or adoration.
2. Lying flat or at full length.
3. Reduced to extreme weakness or incapacitation; overcome.
4. Botany. Growing flat along the ground.
This is hilarious, and memorable, and makes its point very well (without bringing you down). I hope it ends up on TV, or goes viral (and, fwiw, I'm a woman and I don't think it's sexist).
(ps - although some posters are correct about some of the women being too young for mammograms, a lot of us like to think we look younger than we are - so choosing young-looking actresses is probably more effective than older-looking ones...)
And what's important and left out is the need to choose a competent facility. The one to which my wife's doctor referred her fucked up their readings. Twice. And she was left, by the time she discovered the tumor while self-palpating, with Stage III cancer (you can Google the survival rate). Besides a criminally incompetent radiologist, this facility had crappy equipment and allegedly fucked up internal systems for getting studies to the doctor for review. What it did have -- clearly of no value -- was a profitable networking with local doctors to get them referrals and business.
For having gone to this awful place, she would have been at least as well off never having gone at all.
So, from that perspective, the above video may well be utter dishonest bullshit.
And of course, you can't just rely on your doctor's referral to a facility. Their choice may be dependent on making the monthly payment on the AMG S-class.
THANK YOU so much for saying that more eloquently than I could. Ever since I took an engineering systems course that focused on the deliverance of health care, I've been driven mad by some of these screening campaigns.
Good advert but bad advice. None of those women should have cancer screening. The false positive rate is far too high. At the age of some of those women, there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of mastectomies for every real cancer.
You need to be at least 40 and probably 50 for it to be worthwhile. Even then, it depends on how you define worthwhile.
And that's before you get into the cost of a massive screening and treatment programme that could be better spent on other lifesaving medical interventions.
For young women, the best advice seems to be to check for lumps regularly and go to a doctor immediately if you find anything odd. Screening healthy young people for a disease that very rarely affects them is a waste of time.
Sympathies senft; but if it makes you feel any better, it's less likely to be incompetence on the part of the mammogram service. Mammograms are a terrible, awful, useless, insensitive, nonspecific test. I speak from the perspective of a medical professional, and from seeing both my mum's breast cancers being undetected on mammogram but positive on ultrasound. As far as cancer screening goes mammograms are almost as useless as PSA testing for prostate cancer. In fact the only screening test that is really effective is colonoscopy for colon cancer. As already noted by many posters, screening mammography in women under 50 is unhelpful and potentially harmful. If you believe the Cochrane review (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11684218), then no women benefit from screening mammography. In women with a high-risk of breast cancer (strong family history, BRCA1/2 mutations etc) MRI is by far and away the best test, though expensive.
And where is the real advice for young women that would actually help them prevent breast cancer? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054223 Get your butt moving and stop eating so badly!
"This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19821284
The prostate is ... sort of *behind* the dick. It's more like tits are easier to sell than ass.
"Part of the difficulty in raising awareness of the issue is precisely because breasts are 'happy and fun' and people are generally pleased to talk about them."
I find a man's prostate much more interesting and fun than a woman's tits, but hey. Apparently I'm in the minority on that topic when it comes to women *and* men.
I remember a great ad that showed "cleavage" in close-up and as it panned out, you realized it was somebody's butt crack and cheeks (gender indeterminate). It was an ad for colon cancer, I think. It was clever, humourous, and directly addressed the breast v. butt issue in terms of PR.
What's up with men's body parts just being hilarious? Testicular cancer makes me giggle, but "happy-fun" breast cancer makes me sombre. We should work on that.
What's up with men's body parts just being hilarious? Testicular cancer makes me giggle, but "happy-fun" breast cancer makes me sombre. We should work on that.
I don't know about that, but I find both breasts and penises hard to take seriously when people are romping naked through a field, bouncing the way they do. Definitely a 70's trope I could do without.
With all due respect, I hope your girlfriend's firm loses its case to force the government of Canada (actually it must be against a province as they have jurisdiction) to fund more prostate cancer screening.
According to the Canadian Cancer Society statistics, there was a huge jump in incidence of prostate cancer in the 90s, from about 80 to 120 per 100,000. This wasn't an epidemic but attributable to "better" screening with PSA tests, which on its face isn't a bad thing. The problem is that there was no decrease in mortality rates - screening isn't effective in saving lives. Unless screening can improve quality of life (like monitoring the progress of known cases - which I believe is funded in all provinces already) there is no reason to spend tax dollars.
I just don't trust doctors anymore....
How is it ethical to give women a happy story about screening and conceal the actual facts and the risks of the test?
Take a look at cervical screening - Dr Angela Raffle, UK cervical cancer screening expert, published some figures in the BMJ in 2003/4 - "1000 women need regular screening for 35 years to save ONE woman from cervical cancer".
Did a Dr mention that to you? Or, consider your personal level of risk?
I doubt it...
That would be bad enough BUT this test is unreliable.
Dr Richard DeMay, American pathologist, tells us that 99.35% of women derive no benefit from smears (incl the 0.35% who get false negatives and may be disadvantaged by screening) BUT, 95% of women having annual screening will get an "abnormal" result and be referred for colposcopy and usually some form of biopsy in her lifetime. Two yearly - 77% Three yearly - 65% 5 yearly - 30%-55%
Some of those women will be left with health problems after treatment or biopsies - LEEP and cone biopsies carry the greatest risk - infertility, miscarriages, problems during pregnancy, pre-term delivery, more c-sections, premature babies and psychological issues.
Massive and potentially harmful over-treatment for a risk of just 1% in an un-screened population.
Even if everyone screened, one third of women who get this cancer, would STILL get this cancer. (false negatives)
What exactly are we doing recommending (usually quite aggressively) this test to women with NO informed consent? In fact coercion is often used to get women screened - women are routinely refused birth control in the States and Canada unless they agree to not only smears (usually annual) but also other exams that are not evidence based. The Pill and cancer screening are unrelated - this is an unethical practice.
Routine pelvic exams - not recommended in asymptomatic women ever, poor/low clinical value and expose women to risk from more unnecessary interventions even surgery.
Clinical breast exam - no evidence they bring down the death rate, but they cause biopsies, which some believe are a risk factor for cancer.
The only exam required for the Pill is a blood pressure test and some Q's to establish suitability.
Routine rectal exams - too ridiculous to even address...(also some US doctors promote visual inspection - I have no idea what that is about!)
American women really need to look at the evidence behind these so-called vitally important medical checks. The evidence of benefit is simply not there...but there is evidence of harm.
These exams are no doubt part of the reason you have more hysterectomies that any other women in the world - a huge 600,000 every year. (and huge numbers of procedures incl. cervical biopsies)
The more often you screen and if you're under 25, the more likely you'll get a false positive result and have unnecessary treatment or biopsies.
Screening for cervical cancer is a matter for each woman to consider having regard to her level of risk.
Some women will be content to accept a tiny risk from this cancer rather than a high risk of "treatment" after a false positive.
(See: Why I'll never have another smear test" by Anna Saybourn, "The Guardian" 2004 - on line)
Women should be given full information and her informed decision respected and accepted by Dr's.
Finland has the lowest rates of cervical cancer in the world and sends the fewest women for colposcopy/biopsies - they offer screening from age 30 (avoiding harm to young women who have a tiny risk from this cancer and a HUGE risk from over-treatment) and then 5 yearly - 5 to 7 tests IN TOTAL.
Less is more with cervical screening.
As a low risk woman, I don't participate in cervical screening and I won't be having mammograms due to concerns about risk. The other exams are not recommended by our doctors at any age in asymptomatic women.
Re: Mammograms - see the Nordic Cochrane Institute website and "The risks and benefits of mammograms" published due to their concerns about the misleading and incomplete information being released to women.
They have also completed another study - a review of data over a 10 year period - two groups of Danish women - aged 55-72 - one group having mammograms, the other unscreened.
The screened group had a 1% drop in mortality from breast cancer, the unscreened group had a 2% drop in mortality from breast cancer!
Prof Michael Baum's articles are also informative.
It is important to protect our health and make informed decisions about screening and preventative exams - sadly, we can't rely on our doctors.
(See: DeMay article, Dr Raffle's research (and lots more) at Dr Joel Sherman's medical privacy under women's privacy issues or the Violet to Blue site)
Dr Sherman wrote, "Informed consent is missing from cervical screening" at the Kevin MD site and at his forum.
PS BSE has been OUT for years - it doesn't help, but exposes women to more biopsies.
Dr Joan Austoker from Oxford University promoted "breast awareness" - simply taking note of the look and shape of your breasts after you shower (no touching!). I've decided to use this method.
42 Comments • Add a comment
Very clever and effective at getting its (sobering) message across.
I didn't realize healthy breasts were supposed to honk like that.
Am I the only one which sees this as sexist?
Poor girl at the end, that was so blunt.
Also, notice how the fat women get a loud truck horn?
The only one WHO sees this as sexist? Probably not. Someone is bound to complain about the lack of male representation. Seriously though, unclench yourself a little. It's a clever way to get across an extremely important message for women. Breast cancer is rampant. My wife discovered hers in October.
I would've enjoyed being at the Creative presentation. If only to see how they wanted to promote prostate exams.
Well, so what? What's wrong with bein' sexy?
Don't most women get their first mammogram at around age 40?
I don't think any of the women in this video are old enough to have had a mammogram.
They tried to do a similar commercial for men, but testicular cancer just isn't common enough, and when they tried it with prostate... the results were deemed too disturbing.
Sorry, that should have been 'many', not 'any'.
Great ad and it gets the point across with making the ad funny and getting a serious issue in front of people.
I know - men get breast cancer, too! You should make a video to balance things out, abhijit. I'll post it.
What sound do people without colon cancer make?
Couldn't find a definition of sexism under which this could possibly qualify. I know it's a common mistake in our(?) society to call anything that is sexual sexist, racial racist, or furry furry. It's a mistake that I try to avoid although it's delicate if everyone else isn't on the same page.
I imagine a withering trombone blast would be suitable.
My Bride was going to skip her mammogram this year but for some reason she got it anyway. After a tiny lump, too small to feel, was found a biopsy was done. She has malignant breast cancer and is having surgery in two days. Odds are she will make a full recovery. I'm glad I didn't lose her and that she's going to be alright. Here's what she said about the commercial:
"That's funny! Email the url to me! I want to send that to my friends to keep encouraging them to get their mammograms!"
Oh, if only the dreaded exam-o-gram was this painless & fun. Wonderful clip! Thanx, Mark -- sending it out to a couple of Gyno-American friends who still resist....
Screening is great at age >= 50.
from 40-50, 1900 women have to be screened (regularly, for the entire period) in order to save one life. that number is half as large for 50+.
Add to that the potential for overdiagnosis. lots of BCIS, breast carcinoma in situ, will not progress to malignant cancer, but there's the better-safe-than-sorry thinking at work too, which is obviously understandable.
we're now learning that lots of smaller cancers are not necessarily going to progress, and may be handled by the body's immune system without trouble given time. lots of smaller tumors are also very slow growing, and earlier detection by a year or even five years will not NECESSARILY contribute to better outcomes. and then, the fast growing tumors that are really lethal are quite likely to kill you before you go have another regular screening, if you come down with one.
the fear of cancer contributes a lot to the anxiety associated with that diagnosis, and drives a lot of increased spending on treatment when what is most needed is more research on the biochemical markers that define malignancy.
better prevention is more effective overall than more regular screening. basically, it should be a personal choice, but I think it's irresponsible to promote a clearly wasteful use of resources that could be more effectively put towards programs that are far more effective, like vaccination for instance.
The message is very serious, but if they take on that serious a tone, people will tune it out.
I'd like to see something that playful to warn us of global warming, or creeping fascism.
The message is very serious.
To hop on a little soap box, though, one of the best preventatives of breast cancer (if not the best) is kept quiet because because it conflicts with the pervasive consumerism in modern society. It's much easier to just use technology to detect it once it's developed.
Breast cancer is already way overfunded in comparison with similar cancers that have similar death rates and affect a similar number of people.
Prostate cancer anyone? Just cause tits are easier to sell than dicks, they get more money?
Ooh, let me guess. Get pregnant early and often?
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/pregnancy
Really, #20? I didn't realize not buying stuff would prevent breast cancer. Awesome! Thanks for the tip.
The ad is funny and misleading. One wouldn't recommend to those women to make a mammogramm because they are too young (the quality of the mammogramm from women that age probably is too bad to be of much use) and because the tissue of younger women is more susceptible to radiation.
spcfgt - My girlfriend's law firm is currently fighting a human rights case against the government of Canada based upon the fact that screening tests for breast cancer are fully covered whereas certain screening tests for prostrate cancer are not. Part of the difficulty in raising awareness of the issue is precisely because breasts are "happy and fun" and people are generally pleased to talk about them. The prostrate? Not so much.
I was waiting for a big old fashioned "a-ROOOOOOO-ga"
Very important message. As it's one of the two cancers my mother in law beat, I made my wife start getting yearly mammograms at 30.
What's the difference?
That's cool, I wish I have one of those.
#24:
pros·trate (prŏs'trāt')
tr.v., -trat·ed, -trat·ing, -trates.
1. To put or throw flat with the face down, as in submission or adoration: "He did not simply sit and meditate, he also knelt down, sometimes even prostrated himself" (Iris Murdoch).
2. To cause to lie flat: The wind prostrated the young trees.
3. To reduce to extreme weakness or incapacitation; overcome: an illness that prostrated an entire family; a nation that was prostrated by years of civil war.
adj.
1. Lying face down, as in submission or adoration.
2. Lying flat or at full length.
3. Reduced to extreme weakness or incapacitation; overcome.
4. Botany. Growing flat along the ground.
This is different from:
pros·tate (prŏs'tāt')
n.
The prostate gland.
adj.
Of or relating to the prostate gland.
Thank you for your attention.
Funnily enough, many people discover their prostate when they are prostrate. Or occasionally supine.
This is hilarious, and memorable, and makes its point very well (without bringing you down). I hope it ends up on TV, or goes viral (and, fwiw, I'm a woman and I don't think it's sexist).
(ps - although some posters are correct about some of the women being too young for mammograms, a lot of us like to think we look younger than we are - so choosing young-looking actresses is probably more effective than older-looking ones...)
And what's important and left out is the need to choose a competent facility. The one to which my wife's doctor referred her fucked up their readings. Twice. And she was left, by the time she discovered the tumor while self-palpating, with Stage III cancer (you can Google the survival rate). Besides a criminally incompetent radiologist, this facility had crappy equipment and allegedly fucked up internal systems for getting studies to the doctor for review. What it did have -- clearly of no value -- was a profitable networking with local doctors to get them referrals and business.
For having gone to this awful place, she would have been at least as well off never having gone at all.
So, from that perspective, the above video may well be utter dishonest bullshit.
And of course, you can't just rely on your doctor's referral to a facility. Their choice may be dependent on making the monthly payment on the AMG S-class.
Yes, you are the only one who sees this as sexist. :)
THANK YOU so much for saying that more eloquently than I could. Ever since I took an engineering systems course that focused on the deliverance of health care, I've been driven mad by some of these screening campaigns.
Good advert but bad advice. None of those women should have cancer screening. The false positive rate is far too high. At the age of some of those women, there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of mastectomies for every real cancer.
You need to be at least 40 and probably 50 for it to be worthwhile. Even then, it depends on how you define worthwhile.
And that's before you get into the cost of a massive screening and treatment programme that could be better spent on other lifesaving medical interventions.
For young women, the best advice seems to be to check for lumps regularly and go to a doctor immediately if you find anything odd. Screening healthy young people for a disease that very rarely affects them is a waste of time.
Sympathies senft; but if it makes you feel any better, it's less likely to be incompetence on the part of the mammogram service. Mammograms are a terrible, awful, useless, insensitive, nonspecific test. I speak from the perspective of a medical professional, and from seeing both my mum's breast cancers being undetected on mammogram but positive on ultrasound. As far as cancer screening goes mammograms are almost as useless as PSA testing for prostate cancer. In fact the only screening test that is really effective is colonoscopy for colon cancer. As already noted by many posters, screening mammography in women under 50 is unhelpful and potentially harmful. If you believe the Cochrane review (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11684218), then no women benefit from screening mammography. In women with a high-risk of breast cancer (strong family history, BRCA1/2 mutations etc) MRI is by far and away the best test, though expensive.
And where is the real advice for young women that would actually help them prevent breast cancer? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054223 Get your butt moving and stop eating so badly!
Close, but no cigar: breastfeeding.
And yes, phenocopy, breastfeeding offends many dominant cultural trends right now, not the least of which is consumerism.
Addit: Latest update of the Cochrane review.
"This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19821284
The prostate is ... sort of *behind* the dick. It's more like tits are easier to sell than ass.
"Part of the difficulty in raising awareness of the issue is precisely because breasts are 'happy and fun' and people are generally pleased to talk about them."
I find a man's prostate much more interesting and fun than a woman's tits, but hey. Apparently I'm in the minority on that topic when it comes to women *and* men.
I remember a great ad that showed "cleavage" in close-up and as it panned out, you realized it was somebody's butt crack and cheeks (gender indeterminate). It was an ad for colon cancer, I think. It was clever, humourous, and directly addressed the breast v. butt issue in terms of PR.
What's up with men's body parts just being hilarious? Testicular cancer makes me giggle, but "happy-fun" breast cancer makes me sombre. We should work on that.
I don't know about that, but I find both breasts and penises hard to take seriously when people are romping naked through a field, bouncing the way they do. Definitely a 70's trope I could do without.
With all due respect, I hope your girlfriend's firm loses its case to force the government of Canada (actually it must be against a province as they have jurisdiction) to fund more prostate cancer screening.
According to the Canadian Cancer Society statistics, there was a huge jump in incidence of prostate cancer in the 90s, from about 80 to 120 per 100,000. This wasn't an epidemic but attributable to "better" screening with PSA tests, which on its face isn't a bad thing. The problem is that there was no decrease in mortality rates - screening isn't effective in saving lives. Unless screening can improve quality of life (like monitoring the progress of known cases - which I believe is funded in all provinces already) there is no reason to spend tax dollars.
I just don't trust doctors anymore....
How is it ethical to give women a happy story about screening and conceal the actual facts and the risks of the test?
Take a look at cervical screening - Dr Angela Raffle, UK cervical cancer screening expert, published some figures in the BMJ in 2003/4 - "1000 women need regular screening for 35 years to save ONE woman from cervical cancer".
Did a Dr mention that to you? Or, consider your personal level of risk?
I doubt it...
That would be bad enough BUT this test is unreliable.
Dr Richard DeMay, American pathologist, tells us that 99.35% of women derive no benefit from smears (incl the 0.35% who get false negatives and may be disadvantaged by screening) BUT, 95% of women having annual screening will get an "abnormal" result and be referred for colposcopy and usually some form of biopsy in her lifetime. Two yearly - 77% Three yearly - 65% 5 yearly - 30%-55%
Some of those women will be left with health problems after treatment or biopsies - LEEP and cone biopsies carry the greatest risk - infertility, miscarriages, problems during pregnancy, pre-term delivery, more c-sections, premature babies and psychological issues.
Massive and potentially harmful over-treatment for a risk of just 1% in an un-screened population.
Even if everyone screened, one third of women who get this cancer, would STILL get this cancer. (false negatives)
What exactly are we doing recommending (usually quite aggressively) this test to women with NO informed consent? In fact coercion is often used to get women screened - women are routinely refused birth control in the States and Canada unless they agree to not only smears (usually annual) but also other exams that are not evidence based. The Pill and cancer screening are unrelated - this is an unethical practice.
Routine pelvic exams - not recommended in asymptomatic women ever, poor/low clinical value and expose women to risk from more unnecessary interventions even surgery.
Clinical breast exam - no evidence they bring down the death rate, but they cause biopsies, which some believe are a risk factor for cancer.
The only exam required for the Pill is a blood pressure test and some Q's to establish suitability.
Routine rectal exams - too ridiculous to even address...(also some US doctors promote visual inspection - I have no idea what that is about!)
American women really need to look at the evidence behind these so-called vitally important medical checks. The evidence of benefit is simply not there...but there is evidence of harm.
These exams are no doubt part of the reason you have more hysterectomies that any other women in the world - a huge 600,000 every year. (and huge numbers of procedures incl. cervical biopsies)
The more often you screen and if you're under 25, the more likely you'll get a false positive result and have unnecessary treatment or biopsies.
Screening for cervical cancer is a matter for each woman to consider having regard to her level of risk.
Some women will be content to accept a tiny risk from this cancer rather than a high risk of "treatment" after a false positive.
(See: Why I'll never have another smear test" by Anna Saybourn, "The Guardian" 2004 - on line)
Women should be given full information and her informed decision respected and accepted by Dr's.
Finland has the lowest rates of cervical cancer in the world and sends the fewest women for colposcopy/biopsies - they offer screening from age 30 (avoiding harm to young women who have a tiny risk from this cancer and a HUGE risk from over-treatment) and then 5 yearly - 5 to 7 tests IN TOTAL.
Less is more with cervical screening.
As a low risk woman, I don't participate in cervical screening and I won't be having mammograms due to concerns about risk. The other exams are not recommended by our doctors at any age in asymptomatic women.
Re: Mammograms - see the Nordic Cochrane Institute website and "The risks and benefits of mammograms" published due to their concerns about the misleading and incomplete information being released to women.
They have also completed another study - a review of data over a 10 year period - two groups of Danish women - aged 55-72 - one group having mammograms, the other unscreened.
The screened group had a 1% drop in mortality from breast cancer, the unscreened group had a 2% drop in mortality from breast cancer!
Prof Michael Baum's articles are also informative.
It is important to protect our health and make informed decisions about screening and preventative exams - sadly, we can't rely on our doctors.
(See: DeMay article, Dr Raffle's research (and lots more) at Dr Joel Sherman's medical privacy under women's privacy issues or the Violet to Blue site)
Dr Sherman wrote, "Informed consent is missing from cervical screening" at the Kevin MD site and at his forum.
PS BSE has been OUT for years - it doesn't help, but exposes women to more biopsies.
Dr Joan Austoker from Oxford University promoted "breast awareness" - simply taking note of the look and shape of your breasts after you shower (no touching!). I've decided to use this method.
Send a comment