Talk

Advanced search

Would you please sign this petition for a lower age for cervical screening

(18 Posts)
MunchMunch Wed 11-Jan-17 19:14:33

A young lady from my city has just died from cervical cancer aged 25 after battling with cancer for 4 years! Her family and friends are trying to get the age of smears reduced and are campaigning so would you please be kind enough to sign the petition

https://www.change.org/p/the-government-lower-the-age-of-cervical-cancer-screening-to-18?source_location=petition_nav

Read about Amber here...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/tragic-tale-young-woman-who-12434331.amp?client=safari

MunchMunch Wed 11-Jan-17 19:16:37

Sorry for non clickys, I can usually post clickys so I don't know why it hasn't this time.

Try again...

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/tragic-tale-young-woman-who-12434331.amp?client=safari

MunchMunch Wed 11-Jan-17 19:17:01

www.change.org/p/the-government-lower-the-age-of-cervical-cancer-screening-to-18?source_location=petition_nav

wherethemildthingsare Wed 11-Jan-17 19:18:18

No, because there are good reasons for not screening younger women.

Any women with symptoms need full assessment, not screening.

leedspirate Wed 11-Jan-17 19:19:59

I'll happily sign. I got screened at 18 (in Scotland) and this saved my life.

Trills Wed 11-Jan-17 19:20:18

No.

scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/06/09/cervical-screening-is-age-the-only-debate/

CRUK says it would do more harm than good, due to younger women having higher chances of having false positive unusual results and ending up having unnecessary further investigations and treatment.

I think they know better than I do, even if I do find it sad that a young woman has died.

Justme3 Wed 11-Jan-17 19:22:40

I'm afraid I am in agreement with pp.
Medics have explained to me younger women aren't screened as it isn't reliable in young women and as pp says young women with any symptoms need full investigation
The amount of money it would cost for young women still to be missed would be a huge drain on resources for no gain

PlanetSchmanetJanet Wed 11-Jan-17 19:23:18

No. There are good reasons for the screening age to be what it is.

That poor young lady should have been examined when she first displayed symptoms. Not screened.

SausageSoda Wed 11-Jan-17 19:26:03

Today 19:19 leedspirate

I'll happily sign. I got screened at 18 (in Scotland) and this saved my life

Same here. Got screened when I moved to Scotland for uni when I was 18 and I was found to have pre-cancerous cells. If I had to wait until I was 25 to be screened I honestly don't know if I would be here today. I feel passionately about lowering the age limit because it does and can save lives

PurpleDaisies Wed 11-Jan-17 19:26:21

I agree with the other posters.

The evidence doesn't support this change. It's terribly sad about the young woman that died from cervical cancer. If she had symptoms she should have been referred for investigations which would have detected the cancer.

Screening from 18 will do more harm than good.

megletthesecond Wed 11-Jan-17 19:27:14

Marking my place. I'll read up later.

I had a hysterectomy after several CIN3 so count myself lucky that's all it ever was.

8814 Wed 11-Jan-17 19:28:36

Screening in Scotland starts at 25 now I believe

Cherylene Wed 11-Jan-17 19:28:50

I agree with other posters
Screening at young ages would result in a lot of unnecessary treatment for these women and would not necessarily catch the cancers they get, as they tend to be the sort that do not show up with cervical smears anyway.

There is good evidence for not screening until 30.

MunchMunch Wed 11-Jan-17 19:29:25

Thank you to anyone who signs and I respect people's decisions to also not sign. I'll have a look at the links when I get home as my battery is about to conk out smile

SausageSoda Wed 11-Jan-17 19:29:32

^^ not sure, I don't live there anymore and it was a long time ago when I was at Uni

SausageSoda Wed 11-Jan-17 19:30:04

Sorry, that comment was for 8814

Keepingupwiththejonesys Wed 11-Jan-17 19:54:42

I'm going to have to read up on this as I'm actually a lot less knowledgeable on the subject then I probably should be. I'm 25 and have never had a smear, I can't right now as I'm pregnant. This is my third child and I was a little surprised that I didn't have to have a smear after my first child but never questioned it. I always thought it was from age 25 onwards but if you had children you had them from the age you where after the child is born. I don't know why I thought that, must have heard it off someone but I was wrong.

Figure17a Wed 11-Jan-17 20:12:06

I don't know.

Obviously what happened to her was tragic but in an NHS with finite and stretched resources, I'm not sure if best use of funds is widespread screening for a very small risk. That's my initial gut feeling, but then if the screening isn't reliable in younger women either, I'd really struggle to support it.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now