|
semantics?
Great discussion. I think that we are agreeing more than not and that some of what seems to be disagreement is simply a language thing. No one is saying that it might not be helpful to pay attention to our bodies and to find a lump of cancer by whatever means. What this Cochrane report is saying is that it is not MORE helpful to teach a specific technique to be done at a specific interval. And it's saying that to do so results in more interventions (and the anxiety and additional physical risk that goes with that) yet offers no additional benefit to life.
There's really no other way to find a cancer than by imaging or palpation, is there? Except the rare case of skin eruptions. Finding does result in treatment and treatment does make a difference. It cures some and prolongs the life of almost all. It's no secret that we do not (yet) know how find everyone's cancer early enough to save everyone's life.
The Cochrane report clarifies that to invest money and effort in insisting that women do this very specific intervention (BSE) is a waste of that time and money. Money that could be much better spent either for research to increase our understanding and eventual control of breast cancer, or for money to assist those unable to afford good care (alas, a need that many experience in our country at this time).
In addition, to continue to imply to women that formal BSE offers some safety or benefit is to lie to those women and that bothers me. Women deserve accurate information about what we know, and also about what we don't know.
Email is so weird. It's hard to interpret tone in emails. I read my own words after posting, and think that they sound so much harsher than I intended. I don't mean to sound harsh or critical of anyone's experience or opinion. I just want us to respect truth when we see it, and Cochrane reports are well respected for offering unbiased and unemotional assessments of lots of small studies - sorting out the chaff (poorly-done studies) and including only the quality.
Debbie Laxague
|