News, sports, politics, blogs and forums for Hutchinson, Minnnesota • (320) 587-5000

Motorbuys • Real Estate • myMarketplace.mn • Coupons

Advertising

Advertising

News » Opinion

LETTER: Early detection is always best cure for breast cancer

Submitted by webmaster on December 1, 2009 - 6:30am.
» Read similar stories filed under:

From Renee Wetterling
Hutchinson
I was both surprised and shocked to read about the new recommendations for breast cancer screening published by a government task force of doctors and scientists. In its report, the government panel says that most women do not need mammograms in their 40s and then should get one every two years starting at age 50. The American Cancer Society recommends annual screening starting at age 40 for all women. It is a known fact that early detection is the best cure for breast cancer.

The government advisory panel also states that false positives and false alarms cause too much stress and anxiety to women. Which one of us would rather have the stress and anxiety of a false alarm rather than have to endure the stress and anxiety of a cancer diagnosis and resulting treatment?

I am involved in a breast cancer support group and am a breast cancer survivor myself. I am convinced that most of our 25-plus active members would not be alive today were it not for mammograms.
In addition, the majority of our group range in age from 35 to 55 years of age.

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in women aged 40 to 49 with more than 4,000 deaths expected in this age group this year. Of the lives saved by mammograms, which ones would not be worth it ... your mother, wife, daughter, sister, grandmother, aunt, or friend?

Advertisement. Article continues below.

If early detection saves just one life, isn’t it worth it?


I believe the new regulation...

Back to page top

I believe the new regulation of mamograms is only the beginning of the government-run health care program. Decisions about our own health care will be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Our privacy will be gone because all of our health and financial records will be available to them.

It will ration health care, provide free health care for illegal immigrants and allow for free abortion services. I don't want to be responsible for paying for abortions!

The Bill will eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government-run system.

This legislation has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. It's trying to transfer (our) power and rights to the executive branch of government and will destroy the Constitution as we know it. Currenly we can make our own health care decisions, but if this bill goes through our rights and privacy will be gone.


Submitted by star-ann on December 3, 2009 - 11:50am.

There was no new regulation...

Back to page top

There was no new regulation on mammograms, just the release of a report by medical researchers recommending that the guidelines be revised. We need to constantly review medical procedures and run cost-benefit analysis to see what's working well and what can be improved. Our current patchwork system of employer sponsored health insurance subjects us all to "rationing" at the hands of corporate bureaucrats whose only concern is the bottom line of their corporate entity. I would rather be "rationed" by a medical researcher who is striving to provide the best possible care to all Americans in a government-run health plan.


Submitted by darwinball on December 4, 2009 - 5:54am.

It's highly unlikely that...

Back to page top

It's highly unlikely that anything will actually change in practice. This was a recommendation, not a "regulation" and there are many critics opposing it. Insurance companies know that it costs a lot more to treat breast cancer than it costs to provide mammograms between the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, if you google "mammogram" you'll find several reports about legislation being proposed to NOT accept these recommendations.


Submitted by mewm172 on December 4, 2009 - 8:13am.

How's that "hopey-changey"...

Back to page top

How's that "hopey-changey" thing working for ya?


Submitted by tms on December 3, 2009 - 10:01pm.

Cost-benefit analysis, huh?...

Back to page top

Cost-benefit analysis, huh? How about health-benefit analysis instead? When we all know that mammograms beginning at age 40 have saved many lives, why did this committee even CONSIDER changing the guidelines for mammograms?!

My health care should be between me and my doctor, not between me, the government, and then maybe my doctor.

I don't believe a big government-run health care plan will improve our health care and if you're concerned about cost-analysis, how is a struggling economy going to pay for it?


Submitted by star-ann on December 4, 2009 - 11:41am.

First, please know that I'm...

Back to page top

First, please know that I'm not defending the committee. What they said and how they said it was idiotic and thoughtless. Things I've read since then have elaborated on the thought process. The committee admitted that the statement should have read that mammograms are more beneficial to women over 50, not that mammograms aren't necessary starting at age 40. Why they published that and expected no public uproar is beyond me. There's no regulation involved - just recommendations, which will likely be ignored by consumers and doctors, as well as insurance companies.

I'm not going to touch your comments on health care reform - that's what you keep coming back to, and I fully admit that I'm not well enough informed on that topic yet to make a valid argument.

Have a great weekend!


Submitted by mewm172 on December 4, 2009 - 3:25pm.

Advertising

Advertising

Recent comments

Advertising

Advertising

Who's new

  • KATIEHp34
  • Praise and Worship
  • rls
  • BornHere
  • SarahJones

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 446 guests online.

Online users

  • Doug Hanneman

Today's Poll

Submitted by Cindy Novak Ardolf on February 3, 2010 - 11:47am.
» Read similar stories filed under:

Advertising