confusing news articles
I heard that news report on NPR (that's right, I listen to NPR) about women NOT doing exams or submitting to mammagrams (spl?) as early as 40...why?....they were weighing the benefits of early detection vs all the false treatments, surgeries, and unwarranted anxeties, this bring on women who are actually not sick. Now wait...the report I heard went on to tell that the actual numbers of treatable cases were very low, compared to the panic treatment women get (or are encourged to get) even though there is nothing to treat....I don't know the numbers, but, it would sure seem worth while if I was one of the "few" that caught something bad early. Is this one of those, "the good of the few vs the good of the many" situations? I kinda see the point, but, again, maybe they should be talking to the doctors who prescribe these treatments from false diagnosis versus the women, after all these years, are taking preemptive measures to ensure they'll be healthy longer....I don't know.