You make excellent points, and raise exactly the right questions. Perhaps there was no way to get through this development when the original phrasing made one immediately think of the statistical woman whose cancer would not have been found without a mammogram or a self-exam. Because if that statistical woman is you, or your mother, sister, aunt, niece or friend, the statistics become not so friendly.
You are right. The population of women who are squeamish about examining their own bodies and asking questions of doctors may not have found a cancer to begin with. But I also worry about future populations of girls and young women, who now may decide that self-exams aren't worth the trouble. It seems possible that one ruling can actually endanger what it took 20 years to establish.
Comment Reply
Anon,
You make excellent points, and raise exactly the right questions. Perhaps there was no way to get through this development when the original phrasing made one immediately think of the statistical woman whose cancer would not have been found without a mammogram or a self-exam. Because if that statistical woman is you, or your mother, sister, aunt, niece or friend, the statistics become not so friendly.
You are right. The population of women who are squeamish about examining their own bodies and asking questions of doctors may not have found a cancer to begin with. But I also worry about future populations of girls and young women, who now may decide that self-exams aren't worth the trouble. It seems possible that one ruling can actually endanger what it took 20 years to establish.
Thanks so much for writing.
November 26, 2009 - 9:17amThis Comment
Reply