Comments on: New Mammogram Recommendations Patronize Women

By: More Confusion on Breast Cancer Screening

More Confusion on Breast Cancer Screening — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:07:39 +0000

[...] to one screening every other year, it ignited a huge controversy with some critics complaining that women were being patronized and short-changed on essential preventive health services and others claiming the move foreshadowed the carnage that might arise under Obamacare death [...]

By: â€žWhy Chicks Matter"| wissenrockt.de

â€žWhy Chicks Matter"| wissenrockt.de — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:21:16 +0000

[...] bestritten hatte.Â Aber Watson hatte auch ein Beispiel fÃ¼r dumme Feministinnen: Die “Feminist Law Professors” hatten kÃ¼rzlich behauptet, eine neue staatliche Empfehlung zur Brustkrebsvorsorge ab 50 [...]

By: “Group Recommends Breast Mammograms for Women Over 50″ and related posts « Twitter

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:17:54 +0000

[...] New Mammogram Recommendations Patronize WomenÂ -Â Feminist Law Professors [...]

By: sarahdeer

sarahdeer — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:32:45 +0000

There is a lot of information that the media (and probably male doctors) are leaving out.

First, mammography is radiation. In small doses, radiation doesn’t necessarily cause harm. But repeated exposure can potentially CAUSE cancer.

Second, breast cancer in young women is usually extremely aggressive and grows very quickly — too quickly to be caught in routine annual monitoring.

Case in point – myself. I started having annual mammograms in my late 20s because my mother was diagnosed in her 30s. In March 2006, at age 33, I had a routine annual screening mammogram. All was well.

7 months later, I found a tumor in my right breast that was nearly 5cm. A premenopausal breast tumor grows too fast to be caught in an annual mammogram.

Now, of course, the footnote that the media never picks up on is — had I KNOWN I had a brca1 mutation, I probably wouldn’t have been satisfied with a clean mammogram. However, I didn’t find out about the brca1 mutation until mid-way through chemotherapy, and it did me little good at that point.

So I think that the condescending tone about “anxiety” over false-positives is troubling, but the powers that be aren’t being completely honest about the mortality rates and the very scary truth about breast cancer in young women.

(I’m fine now).

Sarah Deer

By: Ann Bartow

Ann Bartow — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:51:31 +0000

From the Pandagon comment threads on this topic, by “Mythago”:

I’m sure there’s also a concern that the medically-sound differentiation between testing schedules for women in high-risk groups vs. low-risk groups is going to be utterly ignored by insurance companies. Hey, doctors said that women only need mammograms when they’re 50, so screw you, 45-year-old female who has a family history of women getting breast cancer in their 40s!

AMEN SISTER. No physician I’ve spoken to about this thinks it is wise for anybody to accept this new “dispositive conclusion” as some kind of absolute truth. Women have a long history of being exploited by the medical industrial complex, and I seriously doubt that has come to some magical end while the costs of the Obama health plan are being crunched.

By: feminist blogs in english » » Less boob squishing seems like a value add to me

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:16:00 +0000

[...] doctor types patronizing us, and so it was assumed this was more of the same. Indeed, this was Feminst Law Professors’ unfortunate take, which was bothersome, because in order to get there, they minimized the very real pain and [...]

By: No, Ladies, the New Breast Cancer Guidelines Aren't Patronizing « New Skeptic

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:45:27 +0000

[...] link to Feminist Law Professors, who writes this about the subject: A government task force claims that women don’t need to have [...]

By: Ann Bartow

Ann Bartow — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:35:35 +0000

I Blame the Patriarchy has a pretty good post about this issue here:
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2009/11/19/american-boobs-used-as-political-football-part-472/

At the bottom, in tiny font, are these trenchant words: “Everyone should have access to free genetic testing to determine whether they have the breast cancer mutation. If you’ve got the mutation, your chances of tumoring out before age 50 are, like, 80%. Currently that test costs like 4 grand, and good luck getting your insurance company to cough up for it.”

By: More Writing On and Coverage of the Mammography Controversy Â» Post Â» healthyjoyful

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:31:07 +0000

[...] New Mammogram Recommendations Patronize Women from Feminist Law Professors. Makes a evidence which a “anxiety” of a mammogram is not so most as well as a brand new recommendations have been kind of “don’t be concerned your flattering small head” condescending of women. we have to disagree, though we could see because people cruise a recommendations have been focused which way, formed upon a media coverage. Psychosocial harms *are* referred to in a tangible recommendations, though what seems to be blank in coverage of “anxiety” as a basement for a recs have been a alternative harms described in a strange inform such as deviation exposure, invasive biopsies, cost, nonessential treatment, as well as a like. If a reason not to customarily do screening mammography for women 40-49 of normal risk was essentially since as only intensity stress (ignoring a genuine organic complaint stress can be for most people), afterwards yes, which would be utterly condescending as well as innapropriate. That’s not how we review a recs during all. [...]

By: More Writing On and Coverage of the Mammography Controversy « Women’s Health News

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:35:26 +0000

[...] New Mammogram Recommendations Patronize Women from Feminist Law Professors. Makes the argument that the “anxiety” of a mammogram is not so much and the new recommendations are kind of “don’t worry your pretty little head” patronizing of women. I have to disagree, but I could see why people think the recommendations are focused that way, based on the media coverage. Psychosocial harms *are* mentioned in the actual recommendations, but what seems to be missing in coverage of “anxiety” as a basis for the recs are the other harms described in the original report such as radiation exposure, invasive biopsies, cost, unnecessary treatment, and the like. If the reason not to routinely do screening mammography for women 40-49 of average risk was actually given as just potential anxiety (ignoring the real functional problem anxiety can be for many people), then yes, that would be completely patronizing and innapropriate. That’s not how I read the recs at all. [...]