Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

No, this is a cherrypicking of articles whose conclusions support your particular crusade (edit: not even that... you're just interpretating them as it suits you), without even reading the official guidelines, or the rationale behind them. Which wouldn't really matter that much if this shit didn't have real consequences for real people. The vast majority of data supports routine mammographs as providing a survival advantage for women between 40 and 70 (at least). Therefore by advocating to stop mammograph screening you're advocating crap on par of treating cancer with sugar pills, and I will very much make a stand against that.

[ChairmanPoo]

Ok. What are you advocating exactly, then? Change the starting age, frequency, maybe both? More biopsies? More MRI?

It would be easier not to "put words in your mouth" if you made your position clearer instead of bemoaning mammography screening in general.

[wierd]

While I would also like better disclosure, there is a very real problem for medical practitioners, as regards medical ethics.

You tell someone that their finding is 70% likely to be easily treated: they don't see this as the doctor saying "70% of cases are easily treated, but yours may be one of the 30% that are not, and you should be prepared for that outcome when you decide a treatment option." Instead, what they take away is "my finding is easily treated; my treatment will be easy."

The doctor swears an oath to avoid causing harm, or to cause only the least harm. When most patients willfully misinterpret what you tell them, and choose options that predispose them to dangerous complications, rather than minimizing them, the only way to satisfy that oath is to tell patients about the worst case, so they take the path with the best prognosis in all cases.

[wierd]

They try to balance that against the psychological harm a mastectomy does to a woman.

[wierd]

No. Thyroid is a necessary part of the endocrine system. Removal is not consequence free. There is harm in removing it. The potential harm of removal must be weighed against the potential harm of leaving it, converging on treatments that try to preserve the organ.

You are willfully strawmanning.

"Best prognosis" is a synthesis of "best quality of life + best survival." Because poor quality of life is harm.

You are willfully distorting that to read "best chance at phyrric survival." Which is not correct.

[wierd]

Again, stawmanning.

[ChairmanPoo]

I'm advocating for more information actually being told to the patient, so that they can be informed of the full details of what their diagnosis entails. Along with better advice concerning mammogram screenings after 40 years of age

MIRACLE! THE NCCN GUIDELINES SAY THIS EXACTLY! YOUR ADVOCACY HAS WORKED

Or... this is something that happens to be common sense, and was already standard. 

rather than just a blanket "get screened every year" that some doctors say (since the actual recommendation varies depending on what organization's advice you follow, with the recommendation usually being biannual for 50+).

Have you bothered in checking the NCCN guidelines to see the rationale for advising annual mammographs? You should. It explains precisely what you are asking.

And yes, I am well aware of the consequences of breast cancer screening. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2012, after a mamogram screening. She was never told the odds of her tumor developing into full cancer, or that it was arguable that the tumor she had was even cancer at all- it was a ductal carcinoma in situ. All she got was "you have cancer" and the odds of someone with stage 1 breast cancer surviving or not. The hell I watched her go through for 5 years (hormone blockers, no chemo; her fingernails turned to paper, among other things) over something that very well could have been completely unnecessary? Yeah, I'm familiar with the consequences of breast cancer screening.

And I'm familiar with people getting emotional over personal cases. Doesn't mean you're right, you know.
 

Another article, which has plenty of cites in itself.

"What If Everything Your Doctors Told You About Breast Cancer Was Wrong?"

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Includes a plethora of info about ductal carcinomas in situ that my mother was never told when she was told to do a lumpectomy.

And yes, they did suggest mastectomy and chemotherapy. She declined both

Declining treatment is up to you. A doctor is not a jailor. In the end it's up to you to make a choice. I've never forced anyone to start treatment, or even undergo diagnostic procedures, if they don't want to.

Regarding the treatment: As it happens there are good reasons for recommending different treatments for DCIS depending on findings both at diagnosis and afterwards. Since I don't know those circumstances, the exact recommendations made, nor the rationale behind it, I'll abstain from commenting. I do hope everything goes allright, however, for what it's worth.

[wierd]

Now you are pushing it. The best way to stop an epidemic is to kill the afflicted and burn the bodies. Do you think that is the medically ethical thing to do? Of course not.

You are being needlessly argumentative, and arguing absurdities, that I have never endorsed. Who is putting words in mouths again?

[wierd]

Yes. THE FIRST SENTENCE IS WHAT SETS THE TONE FOR THE PARAGRAPH.

HERE, I WILL QUOTE IT FOR YOU.

The doctor swears an oath to avoid causing harm, or to cause only the least harm.

POOR QUALITY OF LIFE IS HARM.

[wierd]

Obstinance does not make you right, ipsil.

[smjjames]

?

Not quite sure what you two are arguing about atm, but both of you need a chill pill.

edit: I looked, but both of you still need to chill.

[wierd]

1) Note the use the opening sentence I used.
2) note the word choice I used in the bolded part you quoted, when taken in context with the rest of the paragraph.
3) note the repeated attempts to politely correct you misinterpretation.
4) note your obstinance when I POINTEDLY correct your misinterpretation.

Telling someone about the worst case (eg, "it is entirely possible that we may need to remove both of your breasts") is NOT, (and I stress this most sincerely!!) The same thing as " Omg! We HAVE to take both breasts!!"

I don't know how much more clearly I can make that.

[Helgoland]

That's a mightily stationary way of bowing out...