Monday, September 28, 2009

So here's the deal—Conde Nast could basically sue my balls off for reprinting an article of theirs in its entirety. However, I think the first couple of paragraphs will light a fire in your boobies.

Here you go:

"Screen Test"
by Elizabeth Weil
September, 2009.

Subhead: As we learn more about breast cancer, doctors are increasingly debating: What's the best age to start getting mammograms.

It's October once again. Breast cancer month. We've been invited to cook for the cure (pink KitchenAids), work out for the cure (pink Everlast boxing gloves), and shop for the cure (pink products galore). Since public-health campaigns began coloring October pink nearly 25 years ago, they've done a phenomenal job of raising awareness—and anxiety. We've convinced ourselves, and our doctors [S-I-fucking-C. Have you ever been to convince a doctor of anything in his or her field of expertise? Please.], that we need to use every tool in the medical aresenal to defeat this scourge. While the proactive approach seems logical, it is really best for all women? Perhaps the smartest thing we can do this year is to slow down and reconsider some basic assumptions, including: Should all 40-something women get annual mammograms?

This issue has been hotly debated among doctors and policy-makers for years and currently sits at the core of the health-care conundrum as it raises the critical question: Do screening tests do more harm than good? In the case of mammograms for women in their 40s with average risk, that answer may be yes.