Self Exam vs. Mammogram? Use Your Common Sense and Be Proactive

Nancy, a personal friend and colleague at work had a recurrence of breast cancer a few months ago. She felt a hard lump and rushed to the doctor. He was skeptical, for the mammogram was normal, but my friend (an M.D. herself) is no Chicken Little, so her doctor ordered tests and an ultrasound, and sure enough the lump was cancerous. Nancy is now recovering from a mastectomy and will have to take a chemo pill for the next five years.

Watching NBC news last night, she was treated to the sight and sound of Dr. Robert Bazell endorsing regular mammograms over self-exams. He said that the American Cancer Society had stopped recommending self-examinations as a form for detecting breast cancer years ago. There was no scientific proof that regular self-examinations worked better than regularly scheduled mammograms. Brian Williams, cool and skeptical, questioned Robert's remarks. Here's the link to the newscast: Breast Cancer Self Exam.

And below is the letter Nancy wrote to NBC news. By the way, my good friend Leslie died of breast cancer two years ago. She had relied on mammograms and her doctor's advice. Little good that did her! Oh, yes, I know there are exceptions to the rule, but women KNOW their bodies and if something feels off, well, I will pit instinct and self-awareness over a cold and indifferent machine any day.

Here is Nancy's letter to NBC Nightly News:

Dear Mr. Williams,

You were right when you said that probably many women were screaming at their television screens as they listened to a report denouncing the benefits of self-breast examination. I was one of them and I am still screaming.

Five years ago I was diagnosed with Stage II breast cancer after a routine annual physical with my doctor. I had had a mammogram only a few months earlier. If I had practiced a self-breast examination, I would have discovered it myself. For that reason, during these five years of remission I have practiced it every month or so. In April of this year while I was taking a shower, I felt something unusual in my left breast. Again, I had cancer. Among a battery of diagnostic tests, a mammogram was performed. The results of this mammogram practiced six weeks after the tumor was first discovered, was negative for a tumor. It was, however, confirmed by ultrasound and biopsy.

If I had not done self-breast examination and not pursued my concerns with my physician, but had trusted a diagnosis to a mammogram, the cancer would not have been discovered until many months later. My prognosis which is excellent now, would have been very different.

I seriously question the wisdom of anyone who discounts the value of self-breast examinations. Could it be that these are free and mammograms reap huge financial gains to some in the health care industry? This may seem cynical, but it makes you wonder. In addition, it was very surprising that spokesmen for the American Cancer Society would discontinue conducting campaigns for self-breast examination. How difficult or even how expensive, would it be to promote a three pronged approach to preventing breast cancer: annual physical, mammogram, and self-breast examination?

As I now enjoy good health and as I fume at the folly of the “experts” on your news report, I am of the sincere opinion that these experts be taken out at dawn and shot for their irresponsible advice.

Sincerely,

Nancy Faux

Richmond, Virginia

Privacy, or the lack thereof: our invasive society

Brangelina are awaiting twins at a French hospital. A headline assures us that no one can peek inside the windows because they have been papered over.

The Brinkley/Cook divorce case was opened to the public because Christie, who wasn't born yesterday, knew that the press would sensationalize the lurid details even more if the proceedings were kept private.

Celebrities and public figures are photographed at all hours on the red carpet, at a private outing with friends, and during a casual stroll through Target (Kirsten Dunst probably felt like one when a photographer pounced on her to take this photo). Regardless of the setting, celebrities are rated on how well they look.

So, should the price of fame include this enormous invasion of privacy? Are we really owed a glimpse into celebrities' private moments when they are not on a publicity tour or promoting their products? Every day the boundaries of good taste and privacy are shoved back to the point where the concepts themselves are becoming almost non existent. In regard to the Brangelina twins, even the Boston Globe joined in the hysteria, posting a photo of Brad inside a limo after visiting his caro sposo and speculating about the birth. The photographer who sells the first photo of the twins stands to make a bundle of money ( a reputed 24 million dollars). If we can go by past experience, Brangelina will probably sell off the rights to a chosen photographer and donate the money to a good cause. What a smart strategy: fighting fire with fire. As for me, all the hoopla surrounding these multi-millionaire celebrities makes even cynical me feel sorry for them. Other celebrities choose to reveal their private moments to the public (see Colin Firth post), which then makes them fair game as far as that story is concerned.

Lest we minions think we are escaping Big Brother's invasive eye: think again. Our daily movements are monitored through cell phone calls, Website visits, and credit card purchases, and as we pass security cameras and traffic junctions. If someone elects to take our photo while we are in public, they can legally (without our permission) post our image on the Web.

Any time we make a comment or share a photo on the blogosphere, someone with the right search words will be able to download it. My blog's sitemeter stats will tell me the I.P. address of the individual who came to visit, how long they stayed, where they're from, and what posts they clicked on. On WordPress, if you leave a comment you leave your email address as well.

The word "privacy" has become a relative term. 1984 has long come and gone, but the specter of Big Brother watching us has arrived on so many levels that the enormous scope of invasion would boggle even George Orwell were he still alive.

What intrigues me even more is our casual acceptance of this invasion. Moments after hearing of Heath Ledger's death, his family showed up in front of the cameras to share their grief with the world. In times past this would have been a supremely private moment, and reporters and the public would have honored their need for privacy. Except during the aftermath of Princess Diana's death, there is no huge public outcry against paparazzi who follow celebrities at wild speeds, endangering them and their families. Bottom feeders like Perez Hilton make hefty incomes from stalking their famous prey, and then writing scathing comments that overstep the bounds of propriety, but that also enter the gray areas of defamation of character.

If this is progress, quick, put me in a time machine and deposit me in an era where boundaries were respected and people were allowed to live out their lives of quiet desperation away from an ever present eye.

Emerging from sleep

I will be blogging on Dishin' Dat again, but without obligation and only when the fancy strikes me! Project Runway is coming, and I feel my creative juices flowing again.