So a study of numbers and percentages decides that routine mammograms are probably not financially worth it? What about a study of lives saved, hope restored and loved ones still together?
My cancer was discovered by a routine mammogram 11 years ago. Yes, I had to undergo surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, but today I am alive and healthy because the silent killer inside me was found in time. My beautician's cancer was discovered by a routine mammogram at the same time. So was one of my neighbor's, along with two of her daughters'. We all endured treatment at the same time and are still alive.
So which is more "economical": money spent for a mammogram and treatment, or money spent for a funeral?
Bonnie Compton Hanson
A report published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has confirmed what has already been found: The benefit of population-based screening needs solid evidence-based practice. Emotional arguments just don't fly anymore in our tattered medical economy.
In this article, we have two cancer doctors who have analyzed the data versus one doctor at an esteemed institution who calls the report "malicious nonsense."
Which is more likely, that oncologists want more female patients to die of cancer or that some doctors are afraid of less pay because of stricter evidence-based guidelines?