Save the ta-tas from unnecessary surgery

SmartPlanet TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via RSS

•  
  1

  btoomey@...

  11/19/09 | Report as spam

  RE: Save the ta-tas from unnecessary surgery

  I am a great believer in science, and statistics. With science, it is certainly rational to think in terms of percentages. Science thinks one way humans think another. In layman?s world statistics come with emotion - If the science works 100%, that would be considered great. If it works 95%, it could be considered real good. If it works 0%, it will be bad. If it only works 5% it is considered not so good. (After all that is a 95% failure rate.) With science this is all just information. It has no better or worse value.
  
  However, when science (determined by statistics) enters into a life situations, it gets trickier simply because the emotional component is added.
  We leave strict science and begin think both Rationally and Emotionally.
  100% chance the operation will save my life ? Great.
  90% chance it will save my life - I'm going for it.
  20% chance it will save you.. Well that leaves me a 20% chance of survival - I'll go with the 20%.
  You won?t survive without an operation but only a 5% chance you will survive with the operation - I'm going with the 5%.
  
  It is a horrible situation if a breast is removed for no good reason ? Now your single breasted. Possibly with cosmetic surgery you may look normal. Emotionally you may or may not get over it. Oppose that horror with; I wasn't screened at age 30 and developed breast cancer. I didn't even know I had the cancer. The doctors removed my breast but, the cancer has spread and I'm dead in a few months. With this scenario I'll take the single breasted error as a terrible but liveable situation. To me living functionally is always better than dead.
  
  Being strictly scientific we should be working with the information we have at the moment. We should also be trying to figure out why we are getting so many false positives so we get better results. That sounds like a better idea than stopping the screening.
  
  Statistics are scientific and help us move towards higher technology. But, if it improves something only 5% do we reject it? (After all that is a 95% failure rate.) Maybe, but, it should spur inquisition as to why it improves 5% and move us along towards higher results. In scientific reality there are no failures. In science there are only results. Pure information. We get to choose how information is used. Then we get to consider the results as better or worse.
  
  Now we have information about breast cancer. Some people are being screened who will not statistically benefit. But, we also know a certain percent without prior history, or considered to be in a statistical risk group, (1%,5% , 10% , 20% -I don't know this statistic) will benefit. Maybe it might be worth the 1% if we know them. Heck if we don't know them, we aren't affected then we can stick to the statistics. Is it morally right to play the statistics? AHAH ? here come the nasty words; ?We are only saving lives because it is politically correct.? To me that is more than politics. Well then, maybe I?m not as scientific as I thought.
  

•  
  2

  DanaBlankenhorn

  11/19/09 | Report as spam

  btoomey

  You offer good ideas and it's important to note that the formularies aren't changing nor are the payment regimens. Only the current scientific recommendation is changing.
  
  Statistically, population studies we're getting unnecessary treatments, including operations, and we're not saving lives in breast cancer. More needs to be done to identify the fast-growing cancers and more education needs to be done to distinguish them from the slow-growing ones.

•  
  3

  songbird518

  11/20/09 | Report as spam

  RE: Save the ta-tas from unnecessary surgery

  It is easy enough to say that "only the recommendations are changing." Insurance policies will change because of this "recommendation" and it will affect a woman's ability to pay for these procedures. Another point I'd like to make: what about the other side of the stats: there are women who do get cancer in the 40-49 age group who are not considered "high risk." Are these women expendable? If this were a part of your body, and there was even the slightest chance you could get cancer, would you not want to find out early enough to do something about it? Third point: It is ridiculous that the recommendation is to stop self exams. How are women suppose to know they have cancer in time to do something about it? And finally: This is not a "scientific" study. This is a COST ANALYSIS. BTW, more than just FoxNews will disagree with you.

•  
  4

  Jeffin90620

  11/22/09 | Report as spam

  RE: Save the ta-tas from unnecessary surgery

  I was at a health care rally on 11/21 and heard an oncologist speak on this very subject. For those of you who don't know, an oncologist is a doctor who specializes in researching or treating cancer.
  
  I'm sure most of you realize that, just because someone is a medical doctor, they do not automatically know everything about a particular subject. That's why the AMA has Board Certifications and other programs to ensure that the people who claim to be experts have proven a certain level of proficiency.
  
  ABSOLUTELY NONE of the people involved in this latest recommendation are oncologists.
  
  ABSOLUTELY NONE of the doctors involved in this latest recommendation are radiologists (the specialists who examine X-rays to find stuff).
  
  This study was conducted by people who have zero experience detecting, researching or treating cancer.
  
  What does that tell you?
  
  Would it help to know that the last time this board recommended that women get checked less often was during the last big push for a Single Payer health care system back in the early 90s?
  

•  
  5

  DanaBlankenhorn

  11/23/09 | Report as spam

  Jeffin90620

  There is a good reason there weren't any oncologists working on a statistical study. Because it was a study of statistics.
  
  Would you want a statistics professor treating your cancer? I wouldn't.

•  
  6

  DanaBlankenhorn

  11/23/09 | Report as spam

  songbird518

  There is more than cost involved. There are hundreds of women losing their breasts every year to unreasonable fears.
  
  What we're learning about cancer is that not all cancers are created equal. You hear cancer, you cry "cut it off" and you may be simply mutilating yourself.
  
  This is borne out in statistics. I don't want to argue with FoxNews. I am talking here of statistics, not politics. And statistics say there is more risk to your health in going overboard on your fear of cancer than in the present regimen.

•  
  7

  songbird518

  11/30/09 | Report as spam

  RE: Save the ta-tas from unnecessary surgery

  DanaBlankenhorn
  
  So your answer is to not screen women for cancer? The recommendations do not address unncessary mastectomies. They claim that screening results in "false positives" which create "anxiety" in women. I would prefer to know I have cancer rather than not, so that it can be treated. If this causes undue anxiety - so be it.
  
  Where are your statistics that state that these "false positives" result in unneccessary mastectomies? I don't necessarily think a diagnosis of breast cancer should result in mastectomy. My understanding is that there are a variety of treatments and early detection saves lives as well as breasts.
  
  If you advocate the elimination of screening mamaograms - then what is your recommended alternative? If a woman has cancer at 45, and never knows it because she has never been screened, then she could be dead by age 50. Which is worse? Loss of breasts or death?
  
  

•  
  8

  Tekocan

  02/24/10 | Report as spam

  RE: Save the ta-tas from unnecessary surgery

  film izlesinema izlemsn nicklerioyun indiroyun indiradult forumporno izlesohbet