When Ronald Reagan had colon cancer surgery in 1985, many Americans became worried about their own health, and rushed off for a medical check. Two years later, when Nancy Reagan’s breast cancer hit the headlines, the numbers of women having mammography screening jumped.
Closer to home, when Kylie Minogue’s breast cancer hogged the front pages in 2005, many women also rushed off to have mammograms.
If history is any guide, it’s a fairly sure bet that the widespread publicity about Jane McGrath’s death from breast cancer will have a similar impact.
Many might assume that encouraging more women to be screened will be a good thing. We’ve had the message “early detection is better” drummed into us for so long that it’s not surprising if it’s stuck.
But the publicity about McGrath’s death has the potential to waste a lot of resources and possibly do harm if it leads to crowds of young women queuing for ultrasounds and mammograms.
Screening is only worth doing if the potential positives outweigh the potential negatives. The national breast cancer-screening program is aimed at women aged 50 to 69 because it is this age group where screening is judged worthwhile.
Thanks to researchers from the University of Sydney and Cancer Council Victoria, we know that the Minogue breast cancer publicity surge was accompanied by a big jump in the numbers of younger women having mammograms. More recently, a study by University of Melbourne researchers, reported in the International Journal of Epidemiology, outlined why this is such a concern.
They found that as a result of the increased screening of younger women, many more women ended up having biopsies but there was not the equivalent increase in cancer detection. In other words, many more women went through the trauma, cost and anxiety of unnecessary procedures.
The researchers said their findings “raise serious questions about whether the thousands of additional imaging procedures and biopsies ordered in Australia in the wake of Minogue’s highly publicised diagnosis resulted in improved breast cancer detection among young women.”
They added that both the public and doctors are vulnerable to the celebrity effect: “In the furore that surrounds a celebrity illness, holding the line on recommended care may be difficult.”
It’s not only individual women who have unnecessary investigations who are affected. There is also a cost to the system, and to those whose care may be compromised because of the additional burden on the system from the worried well.
It’s an issue that’s worth considering, given the likely impact of the current batch of headlines.
When tragedy strikes, it is a natural human instinct to want to respond with action. Sometimes, it’s wiser to recommend against action.
Researchers at the University of Sydney have developed a decision aid to help women in their 40s evaluate the pros and cons of mammography for their age group.
The loss of Jane McGrath is certainly felt by all who had come to know her quiet strength and dignity. Early screening is an important and difficult issue but of more importance still is PREVENTION.
What risk factors can we identify? Breast cancer incidence in Wesern Indurtialised nations is rocketing up. To what can we attribute this surge? Identifiable factors include age, family history, country of birth, oestrogen exposure, progestin exposure, INDUCED ABORTION and ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE USE in young women. The last two factors are especially critical for women before completion of their FIRST FULL-TERM PREGNANCY.
Induced abortion is the elephant in the room that the abortion industrial complex and their allies simply refuse to address.
How timely then that Senator Bartlett introduces a bill to stop the use of health dollars through Medicare for the destruction of unborn children through second trimester abortion. He will save the lives of many mothers and children.
Have any of you read the China Study by T Colin Campbell distributed by Wakefield Press S.A. ?
If so your answers for ‘ Western Society Diseases ‘ icluding cancer , diabeties and heart disease maybe given some scientifically researched direction with some benefit to all the silent suffers.
If not, and you suffer, maybe worth a read.
Sorry Melissa, but I can’t agree with you. Give us some statistics about the number of biopsies performed and the number of breast cancer cases detected from early (unnecessary?) screening and then we can have a discussion.
In 1998 at the age of 24, after Belinda Emmett was diagnosed, I discovered a lump which was biopsied, and thankfully benign. Another lump was found in 2003 – there was no biopsy, I was sent straight into hospital (terrified) to have both lumps removed. Thankfully benign again, but I would go to hospital again rather than live with the fear that a lump may be malignant. Is that a waste of resources? I paid my way through the private system because I have health insurance. I recall Belinda, a beautiful young woman who is sadly no longer with us, saying that she didn’t act on her lump straight away, thinking (hoping?) it was nothing serious. I acted straight away because of what she said.
What does it matter if it’s a celebrity that makes a person act? It’s the fact that people are taking charge of their lives and being aware of their bodies that is important. Jane McGrath wasn’t a celebrity when she was diagnosed. She went public with her news to make young women aware that breast cancer is not just a disease for old women. Sam Newman’s recent prostate cancer is another case in point.
Thank you Melissa for an extremely timely and wise article.
Dominique’s position I understand and her actions are totally appropriate.
She doesn’t realize she’s talking about something else and isn’t the expert on the many nuances this subject launches into the easily terrifying psychological atmosphere engulfing any woman who has to consider the possibility of the disease at any age. Chasing and biopsying benign lumps and early diagnosis of breast cancer are different endeavours more so the more high the quality of expertise applied. Meaning, that with no expertise one would remove all breasts.
The understanding of the aetiology of breast cancer is advanced compared to that of ovarian cancer which is almost the same monster size killer and specialises in taking beautiful young women of about 20 years and then again letting lose at about the menopause and later. Preventing breast cancer significantly is a very unrewarding subject currently but ovarian cancer can be completely prevented in the young and older women alike at virtually no expense but isn’t happening.
Dominique is only worrying about half her body and half of the boogies waiting to take her to death while young and beautiful.
Is the difference a subconscious (SC) expression of male influence supremacy dancing the tango with the SC Breast obsession? Note that male influence supremacy does nothing for prostate cancer (the male breast cancer equivalent) so it needs to have a sexy partner like the breast subconsciously. In this context the ovary does nothing for men (in fostering such a SC partner) and note neither for women so both sexes have ignored the disease.
Psychology, psychology, psychology is everything