More Republican Lies and Deception Over Cancer Screening
It's highly unfortunate timing for the Obama administration that two new cancer-screening recommendations have been made by government and independent medical groups in a week where the president is seeking legislation for his historic health-care reform bill. While the measures have sparked intense controversy, it's irresponsible and disingenuous for Republicans to label these new guidelines as partisan-based and illustrative of the sort of "rationing" they claim reform will bring. Just like global warming, health-care has become overly politicized, and some things simply aren't political. We all breath the same air, drink the same water, and can contract cancer regardless of political persuasion.
The first finding, announced earlier in the week by the federal Preventive Service Task Force, recommended less-frequent breast-cancer screenings for women under 50. The second was announced Thursday by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), offering new guidelines for pap smears in preventing cervical cancer, specifically that women should delay having them until the age of 21. As expected, both recommendations have unleashed a torrent of emotions and debate on both sides of the aisle, and from women's groups, cancer-prevention advocacy groups and within the medical profession. Now, I am neither a doctor nor a scientist, and I am not going to pretend to have anything but a personal, and highly visceral reaction to these new guidelines. But I will strongly argue against exploiting these very sensitive subjects for political purposes, which is shamefully what the GOP is doing as it attempts to kill the reform bill.
In one sense, the controversy may be somewhat overblown. The ACOG's pap smear findings are similar to what the medical profession has been suggesting for years about prostate cancer prevention. That it's healthier and more effective to screen for, and treat, this very slow-moving disease as men age rather than in earlier years, especially as false positives can lead to unnecessary and potentially harmful biopsies and subsequent side-effect-laden treatments.
But on the surface, the task-force's mammography recommendations seem outrageous and irresponsible. I for one belong to the "there can never be too much cancer-screening" camp. That's just a very seemingly logical mantra to adapt, in my neophyte, medically-uninformed opinion. And I say that as someone who's lost loved ones to this dreaded, ravenous disease. In fact, I hate cancer, and I'm all for spending as much time and money researching cures. But medicine and cancer prevention is not that simple, according to many individuals who have medical degrees hanging on their walls instead of pictures of Shakira (okay, my secret's out...). So I'm going to let the experts continue to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of reduced, increased or status-quo cancer-screenings.
And that's precisely my point: let's let the medical professionals, scientists and researchers do their job and keep the politicians out of this debate. Contrary to right-wing charges, both medical groups were established as apolitical (in fact, the task force was appointed by George W. Bush) and neither focuses on health care costs in drawing their conclusions. To be sure, there's too much at stake here to reduce such a colossally important medical matter to mere pawn-status in the anti-Obama wars of partisan zealots like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok) who are literally salivating at the "let's kill health-care reform" gifts they think they've been handed this week by the task force and the ACOG. What we don't need is more self-serving, duplicitous, inflammatory rhetoric about killing granny, rationing treatments and the perils of socialized medicine. Republicans must stop spreading lies in their insatiable hunger to deceive and manipulate Americans over health care reform. They must keep their personal emotions, religious beliefs and political motivations out of the debate. Haven't we learned anything from the Terri Schiavo case?
Dr. Jon LaPook: Doctors Answer Mammogram Concerns
In light of the new breast cancer screening guidelines, I asked two experts on the front lines of patient care to join me in a live webcast to provide some perspective.
Loading comments… 
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
-alse positives can lead to unnecessary and potentially harmful biopsies and subsequent side-effect-laden treatments-
There are so few false positives that making this argument against preventative medicine just comes off as transparently specious.
The panel that made this recommendation did not include a single oncologist. Just putting that out there.
Your risk of breast cancer just from mammograpy:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PBC/mammography.html
TO THE "Flat Earth Society "out there. Science is not always intuitive, that's why it is called science:
An excerpt from the committe guidelines. They are not even getting to this infomation on TV so that there could be an accurate discussion. Too caught up in the sound bytes as usual:
"Some experts view the over-diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as a potential adverse consequence of mammography. Although the natural history of DCIS is variable, many women in the United States are treated aggressively with mastectomy or lumpectomy and radiation.2 Given the dramatic increase in the incidence of DCIS in the past two decades (750 percent) and autopsy series suggesting that there is a significant pool of DCIS among women who die of other causes,3screening may be increasing the number of women undergoing treatment for lesions that might not pose a threat to their health.
A final potential concern about mammography is radiation-induced breast cancer, but there are few data to directly assess this risk. A 1997 review, using risk estimates provided by the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report of the National Academy of Sciences, estimated that annual mammography of 100,000 women for 10 consecutive years beginning at age 40 would result in up to 8 radiation-induced breast cancer deaths.31"
Irrational, maybe, but inevitable. In an economic sense, unless there is so much medical care out there that it is effectively free, that is no one wants any more than is available, there will be "rationing." It's called scarcity and it's the basis of everything economic. There is less available than everyone wants, therefore there is rationing.
We've had rationing all along. It's called treatment "in accordance with the generally accepted standards of medical practice". Setting standards is nothing new. And updating the standards based on the research and data is nothing new.
But, as far as the Republicans are concerned, the party who talked up the "death panels", a talking point for simpletons, is hardly going to do an about face and talk intelligently now.
As far as "let's let the medical professionals, scientists and researchers do their job and keep the politicians out of this debate", sorry, that's not going to happen. The health reform effort so far has focused on preserving corporate profits. Alternatives like single payer are "off the table". Any discussion as to why, since most large businesses self insure, why aren't we self-insuring as a nation for the same exact reasons business self insure is off the table. We pay 50% more per capita than citizens in other industrial countries, but copying their approach is off the table.
I've come to the conclusion that meaningful health reform can only be accomplished after governmental corruption reform. Same for other reform, such as fiscal reform. We're not going to see a lot out of these folks, so long as corporations are allowed to pay them off in exchange for their votes.
The timing of these recommendations are very curious. The mammogram panel consisted of Bush appointees, we all know what scholars they must be! The timing is to scare women to think care will be rationed, and to derail health care reform. I am sick and tired of the sneaky tactics used by the neocons to intimidate and scare the less informed portion of our population. To the panel-Please crawl back under the rock you exited from, we do not need your junk science at this time.
There in not ONE oncologist on the panel that has made these recomendations .
THANK YOU for reading through the Republican STRATEGY OF LIES & MANIPULATION
for corporate profiteering gains and capitalizing on fear by misleading America.
Actually i think it is rationing..women's health issues going down the tube. However, I don't think it would be fair to say it is THIS health reform effort...it would be the lobbyists who own the bluedogs and the republicans. Bush started it and I think I am cynical enough now to think these are timely announcements to get the fear wagon's drum beating again. These recommendations will not be partisan acts on women..they will be women of all ilks. There ought to be an outrage from all sides of both women and men...and not this gd crowing by the Thugs. Somehow I do not think the Republican children are listening..or none of them have wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, lovers or friends that will also be affected. Oh wait...maybe not...these Congress folks have life time permission to be leeches on us, the taxpayers. Never mind..they will be tested and screened when they want it.
Republicans die-hards see this new recommendation for cancer screening as a form of rationing.
Like socialism, rationing is bad, in their opinion. Except, we have had rationing for many years, ever since the insurance companies were allowed to deny coverage via pre-existing conditions and other
excuses. To them, denial is O.K. and is part of free market capitalism, but following scientific recommendation is rationing which is worse than cancer. How dumb can we get ?
Socialism is bad, rationing is bad. This bill is supposedly going to immediately add (let's pick a conservative number) 20 million people. Without increasing the number of medical professionals to the system explain exactly how rationing won't happen? I agree with your other statements by the way, I just think we can do better job than put our faith in government that hasn't run anything efficiently...in fact I can't think of any government, anywhere, at anytime in human history, that ran anything efficiently -ever! We'd have heard about it wouldn't we? You think these guys are that smart?
For gods sake, government is not going to RUN healthcare. They are going to run an insurance plan. They already do that quite well, e.g., UI, medicare, medicaid. That mantra that "government can't do anything well" is beyond simplistic, it's just plain silly. You never hear about the things government does well because it is taken for granted. We have a national highway system because of GOVERNMENT. We have the treasure of our national parks because of GOVERNMENT. We used to have protections from the rampant greed of capitalists because of GOVERNMENT, before it got taken over by the corporatists. We even have a MILITARY because of GOVERNMENT, that's one you probably love, right? Oh, except that is now being gradually taken over by greedy corporatists, too, and not working too well, either, I hear. I wish conservatives would try to think things through without resorting to silly mantras. The country is getting tired of the monotonous drumbeat of "government is bad."
you're assuming those 20 million people are not in the system at all - they probably are to some degree, paying for service out of their own pocket. It won't be 20 million brand new people. And some people won't go to the doctor at all, whether it's paid for or not.
" we can do better job "
WHO IS WE?
It seems "we" screwed up bigtime TWICE by electing Bush-Cheney
and WE PAY FOR IT ever since.
So much for "how great" WE are! Not.
This is a holdover form Bush politicizing science...only this time they;re using it to restrict wimmin's healthcare...save a little money , you see on the backs of 53% of the population. I wonder what the CBO score is on it?
Bush "science" is LIES & PROPAGANDA. Republicans think that "science" is WHATEVER
THEY SAY IT IS!
They're experts at the science of b.s.
I love the last statement - "They (republicans) must keep their personal emotions, religious beliefs and political motivations out of the debate." How about the fact that this Obama-care is less popular to the American people than Hillary-care was in the 90s and had the whole population running away from it, just about as fast as liberals are running to Obama-care ? If there's no personal or political motivation on behave of the Liberal Democrats, please explain to me what is?
Depends on who is telling the story doesn't in RMG. Your Obama Care shows where you are in this. Sorry...you are not credible. Tho we could talk about the bushocare couldn't we. NADA
The agencies that came out with these reports have nothing to do with Obama, they study the issue and put out a report based on their research.
We don't have to agree with it.
If anything, the Republicans paid for a false report to damage healthcare.
They will lie and have no scruples. They will do anything as a means to an end.
Republicans and these agencies should be investigated to see if Republicans gave them money to release this information now and if the Republicans paid for a contradictory report.
Just like Acorn's being investigated to see if they instituted voter fraud? Look, if the Repubs did something illegal, immoral, or unethical, by all means investigate and if something legitimate is found throw them in jail for a very long time. But investigate the other side just as harshly, Democrat or Republican, neither side is served through corrupt politicians.
The Republicans DID do something immoral and unethical and Obama through ACORN under the bus. The problem is..ACORN worked to have Af Am register to vote.
WOW!
global warming has become over politizied?
Um, with Record Flooding in England, who've been keeping track for 275 years, with no more Multiyear ice in the arctic, Glaciers melting in the Himalaya's, in Africa, in South America, and with Greenland's ice melting at an ever expanding rate and with the Antarctic Ice shelves moving and breaking up at a never before seen rate,
i don't think ENOUGH attention is being spent on it.
See Andy Ostroy's Profile
You totally misinterpreted what I wrote. I fully agree with you. I think not nearly enough is being done to address climate change and its long-term consequences. When I said the issue has been over-politicized, I mean that Republicans have turned global warming into some loony left-wing cause-celebre instead of the important issue it should be to all humans.
These days, I think that anything the Republican Party opposes becomes over-politicized. I believe that it is their MO to avoid constructive dialogue and debate.
REPUBLICAN STRATEGISTS know that "media message" is MORE IMPORTANT than reality!
Today's sleezy CORPORATE politicians use PUBLICITS to
invent LIES & FANTASY MESSAGES
to MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC'S EMOTIONS.
It's too bad the PUBLIC IS LIED TO, and "it's okay" with the justice system.
I think that anybody who LIES TO THE PUBLIC
should GO TO JAIL!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with