Is mammography a flawed technology?

  • Article by: MAURA LERNER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: November 20, 2009 - 9:58 PM

Mammograms are in the spotlight as the uproar continues over how often and at what age women should get them.

  • 16
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
dgb049Nov. 20, 09 9:21 PM

For more than 20 years women have been told to get mammograms every year (and 'we' have paid for them). Now, all of a sudden 'the government' has decided it's not necessary. I don't buy it - either it was a scam up front, or it's bad advice now. How can anyone have any confidence in what is said by 'our government?'

6
4
valkyrie11Nov. 20, 09 9:50 PM

in regards to "subjecting women to unnecessary treatment" is a result of the wonderful Trial Lawyers (John Edwards) who have made MILLIONS on malpractice suits which in turn require doctors to go to the extreme with there medical procedures. But we aren't going to reform that part of the wonderful Medical Reform (Obama Care)it after all the Trial Lawyers are HUGE contributors to the Dems. What a joke, I feel really bad for women in this situation. It's the women who have pulled together and are putting on the walks and fundraisers. This has not only touched women but also there families and friends. Once again THIS IS NOT THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

4
4
MellersNov. 20, 09 9:56 PM

I'm a cancer survivor, 31 years young (blood cancer). Just because I survived Leukemia doesn't mean I can't get any other types of cancers, so I'm interested in this and other topics, as a cancer survivor, as a woman. However, if it's true that mammograms don't do a lot of good and does some harm, I'm going to pay attention. I worry about getting breast cancer too, and partly because I have already survived one type of cancer, I want to be preventative with other types, but I also want to listen to the panel of doctors who made up this "government" panel with the facts, not with emotions.

8
1
hfnorthNov. 20, 0910:21 PM

Heck, get three of them every month if you want to, starting at age 15. Just don't expect the government or the insurance companies to pay for them. If its that important to you, maybe you should pay for it out of your own pocket rather than have others foot the bill in the form of taxes or higher insurance premiums for all people. If you are in a high risk group and your doctor feels you are in that high risk group, fine, make an exception there. But there is no such thing as free medicine; someone needs to pay for it. I'd rather not go to the emergency room for a hangnail, but a broken leg is a valid medical need for insurance. Not abuse of testing which bankrupts the health care delivery system and the increasing insurance premiums to the point where no one can afford to carry insurance.

7
8
tzabelNov. 21, 09 3:22 AM

If you get injured in a car accident you should pay for it yourself because you chose to drive. If you slip on the ice and hurt yourself you should pay for it because you chose to walk on the ice. If you hurt yourself playing a sport you should pay for it because you chose to play the sport. If you get pregnant you should pay for it because you chose to have sex. Is there anything that insurance should pay for hfnorth? Why have insurance pay for any of your treatment? If you chose to have treatment you should pay for it, it is your choice to have treatment pay for all of it you want. R U 4 real?

3
6
oldsoldierNov. 21, 09 6:30 AM

all of a sudden all this new advice. fits right into the scum bag government health care scam. liberals at their best. first scare everyone to death and then when it doesn't fit their agenda change the message. it's all about power and getting votes.

6
7
gbill7Nov. 21, 09 6:56 AM

Dr. Susan Lark & others have been advocating for years the practice of thermography instead of mammography. This technology, which reportedly works great, finds tumors using heat differences instead of radiation, yet I have never seen it mentioned in articles such as this. Why? The AMA itself has publicly stated that there is NO safe dose of radiation, becuse the damage from every exposure to radiation is cummulative. I want to hear more about thermography!

7
0
hfnorthNov. 21, 09 8:07 AM

You misunderstand my position. Every item you casually and sarcastically mention and suggest that I am against, should in fact be fully covered by insurance (car accidents, falling on ice,sports injuries, pregnancy). My point which you did not consider, was that expensive screening tests that have been determined by medical people to be non productive and provide little other than to bankrupt a system already in severe distress should not be paid for by government or insurance. If you want to go in and get an MRI or CAT Scan for the possibility that you might have a brain tumor just because you feel you 'might have one' and need some peace of mind, then go ahead....but pay for it yourself.

3
1
kieselNov. 21, 09 8:09 AM

For a breast cancer to achieve a size of 1 cm (less that 1/2 inch) and be "potentially" palpable, based upon its cell type and doubling times it has been present for at least 5 and as many as 10 years! Mammography, even though an imperfect "test", has improved in its technology and hopefully will visualize a questionable area well before that 1 cm. size has been reached. You don't OVERDIAGNOSE cancer nor do you OVERTREAT it! There ARE instances when the mammogram suggests a "suspicious" area, but this is often clarified (either positive or negative) with a needle biopsy. I would think a "negative" report would be a relief for the patient. But you DO NOT overtreat a cancer -- get over that, please. You can, however, treat a cancer with possibly less aggressive measures and with possibly better outcomes IF you diagnose it at an early stage. What's that worth to your wife, mother, or daughter?

2
1
langton4Nov. 21, 09 8:17 AM

The death rate that was arrived at by this panel was extrapolated and other experts suggest that the death rate would be four or five times that suggested in the report. Statistics are only that. They may be able to predict who is at high risk but that doesn't mean that low/no risk women will not get breast cancer, and the only way to detect cancer in its earliest stages is through adequate screening. Of course, we could always turn back the clock to 1900 when the life expectancy was 40-45 years. Ah, the good old days.

0
1

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: What's your favorite Easter candy?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT