If mammograms at 40 are great, why not 30? Or 20? Much as it may upset some women, from a cost-benefit standpoint, there has to be a cut-off. The same kind of uproar accompanied the recommendation that most prostate cancers shouldn't even be treated because they are very slow growing. What? Not treat a cancer? The ridiculous costs involved in treating prostate cancer didn't justify the iffy benefits. The same thing is happening with breast cancer.
Comment Reply
If mammograms at 40 are great, why not 30? Or 20? Much as it may upset some women, from a cost-benefit standpoint, there has to be a cut-off. The same kind of uproar accompanied the recommendation that most prostate cancers shouldn't even be treated because they are very slow growing. What? Not treat a cancer? The ridiculous costs involved in treating prostate cancer didn't justify the iffy benefits. The same thing is happening with breast cancer.
November 22, 2009 - 12:32pmThis Comment
Reply