The former deputy director of the Canadian national breast screening study has a thoughtful essay in the BMJ this week, reflecting on her own diagnosis.
She asks, and passes along the questions of others who ask, "What's the use of breast screening?" and "Might screening actually be detrimental?" She urges that women be "completely informed" before they accept screening, even though the information might "not be what they want to hear."
And she concludes that the current enthusiasm for screening is based more on fear, false hope, and "greed" than on evidence.
Posted by schwitz at October 28, 2005 09:31 AM | TrackBackHello All!!
I thought that the screening was done so that you can have early detection and catch it before it spread? Just like any other diseases and illness, early detection can help further prevent the outbreak. Do you feel that this method should be omitted? When you say it is greed, do you mean because the patients want to live longer or do you think it has something to do with healthcare and its potential of earning?
Posted by: Suan at November 10, 2005 08:49 PMI just spoke to a a friend whom I have not been in contact for a while and after her mammogram, they discover that she have several area in her breast that have thick mass tissue. They recommended that she should go get a diagnois test done. What does that mean and what are the preventative measures (benefits) of that. Early detection?
Posted by: Suan at November 14, 2005 06:18 PM