New Breast Exam Guidelines, or Just Who Are The Boobs Here?

I had one of those precognitive moments that I assume occurs to everyone from time to time. I do not actually know that others experience such moments, but it seems prudent to operate on the premise that in general things that I experience are natural and not unique.

The incident occurred when I heard on the radio that the Government had released a new set of guidelines on breast mammograms. I remember the news report noted that the new guidelines reduced the recommended age at which starting mammograms were effective, the frequency at which repeating mammograms would be beneficial, and a recommendation that there was no significant value in doctors instructing women on the method for self-examination. The new report mentioned that there were no oncologist on the committee and that some doctors and the American Cancer Society did not agree with the recommendations.

The prescient event was a simple thought-based monologue concerning my expectation that this was going to be a highly-charged media frenzy that would take on a life of its own, and would quickly lose any hold on rationality or connection to actual facts. I suspect that the slight mention that there were a number of groups that disagreed with the recommendations was the seminal information.

And I did not have to wait long to have the future thrust into the here and now. I noticed a couple of internet news items, and later in the day driving home I got to listen to “reaction” to the GUIDELINES! And sure enough, the townsfolk had collected their pitchforks and axes, lit the torches, and were descending upon the governmental gates of the ivory tower committee that had created that monstrous report and guideline recommendations. I mean ya gotta ask yourself: “Did you think that poking the bear was a good idea at the time?”. Because let’s face it, they had to know that if they didn’t make it extremely clear and easy for people to understand what the recommendations meant that there was going to be hell to pay.

Well, welcome to hell. And as Dante’s sign says, “All hope abandon ye who enter here.” Once the media momentum started, it was clear that we had a news story that would focus on comments and reactions from experts and the uninformed alike. And we could count on the media to ensure more grist for the mill, as it would be far easier to play up the anger and confusion than to take any time to analyze and assess what the new guidelines and recommendations were advocating, and determining whether people were reacting from a position of substance or just reacting in and to the moment.

The heated debate is still in full volcanic fury, but there seems to be some attempts to bring the clarity and perspective to the recommendations that we would all hope and assume that responsible parties would have taken from the start. Of course when did we last have had or seen government agencies and bureaucracies, media sources, health care groups and associations, and the public behave in a thoughtful and intelligent manner? I can’t really remember myself; but I think my later father once mentioned to me that he had heard from his father it he had seen it happen. But that may just be one of those urban myths.

I haven’t found the report on-line, but I expect that it might require people to read it before they actually know if it says what many are claiming/assuming it says. Unfortunately, I suspect that it is written for professionals in the field; and thus may be ill-suited for clarity of being understood by almost anyone. I also suspect that in their attempt to provide useful information that would be useful for women to be aware of, that they relied upon a rational and unbiased reader. Expecting that the information would be assessed impartially and incorporated into the information that the Health Care system and groups strive to make available to women, physicians, and other individuals involved in the medical professions and industries.

Naa! That’s not going to happen!