Bran, anxiety stops people from doing loads of things. Some people are agoraphobic and can't go out. But when anxiety stops you from doing something that has a net benefit, it is worth challenging that anxiety.
Feelings are a genuine experience and emotions make us human, but when the outcome of chronically avoiding smears is death from cancer, it makes sense to challenge those emotions and find a way to get the procedure done. Often the anxiety about the smear is vastly disproportionate to the actual experience.
You make it sound like if you don't get a smear done, you will die of cancer.
Perhaps we should present the facts, and let people decide whether putting themselves through 'facing their anxiety' which might be extremely traumatic and extremely likely is better than the small risk of developing cancer.
There is also the risk of unnecessary invasive treatment. Which could do damage to someone who is tackling anxiety too.
And that also ignores the fact that the risk of cancer is not evenly distributed throughout the population. Its uneven, with some people in higher risk groups than others, which might be worth taking into consideration for some women. A lower risk woman, might well make a different decision than a higher risk one.
It is a very personal decision where you weigh up the risks to you by being informed. The 'net benefits' argument is simply not the same for everyone.
Making an informed decision, which also includes legitimate and very valid case to say no, without pressure from other people.
Its fine if that was the right decision for you. But I do think telling people to 'face up to their anxiety' in such a dismissive way is awful and insulting their intelligence.
The case for screening should stand up in a factual way, rather than on emotive arguments which do not include a debate on risk and have some evidence to back that up.
Evidence does not include anecdotes - even from women who come back with a result for abnormal cells (Because due to false positive more women are given treatment than actually have cancer. This however has the effect of distorting perceptions. The truth is many women who have treatment would never have developed cancer anyway, but live in the mistaken belief that their life had been saved. If you have treatment you have no way of knowing if you were in the group who had their life saved or the group who had unnecessary treatment).
I hate these threads with a passion for this reason, because intelligent women start emotive arguments, uses guilt tactics and talk a lot of tosh rather than evidence based medicine. That's what I find most depressing.
There is a very good case to have a smear. Make the case on its true merits. Be gentle and sensitive - particularly to those with anxiety, who do not respond well to such peer pressure or aggressive tactics.
And be respectful to those who make the decision not to have a test. It is legitimate and their right to do so, and they do not have to justify it to anyone. (Or at least they shouldn't have to, but unfortunately there are a few GPs out there behaving unethically on this one due to their conflict of self interest).