to decline cervical screening offer?

[Teacupsandtoast]

Just that really.

Is there a simple process for opting out or is there hoop jumping required? (Which often seems to be the case when it comes to withdrawing consent for anything)

I have a friend aged 58 who had her last smear at 52 (a year or so before her periods stopped permanently.) She said she is much smaller, narrower and tighter 'down there' now and much 'drier,' and hasn't had sex since the age or 49. She has no desire to go for a smear ever again, despite constant reminders and mithering from the GPs and nurses at the medical practice.

She has also had to put up with shit like 'I BET you will want the treatment if you get cervical cancer though eh eh eh???' As you say @Teacupsandtoast like people who smoke, drink, drive, and play dangerous and risky sports, and who are very obese. ALL risk needing additional and 'could be avoided' healthcare.

YOUR BODY - YOUR CHOICE. And IDGAF if anyone gets irked by that phrase. How the fuck can ANYONE be annoyed by women wanting autonomy and to make the choice to not have something done to THEIR BODY?!

Ignore the haters and beraters. If you don't want a cervical smear, don't have one. They have 'fors' and 'againsts' anyway, and don't always give accurate results. Same as bloody breast screening. I have been called for that recently. Declined. Not going. Never will. So shoot me. And yes I WILL take any treatment if I get breast cancer. Again, so shoot me. I really don't give a shit what people think. How DARE anyone deny me the medical treatment I will deserve and that I have spent a lifetime paying towards. Just jog on!

@BadNomad

Your reasons are your reasons. No one is entitled to know them. You don't have to justify yourself to anyone. Screening is a CHOICE. An option for those who want it. We make choices every day about many things that might have gone differently had we made a different choice. Every time something goes wrong, every time we get hurt, every time we get into an accident, we think "I wish I'd done XYZ instead".

So, yes, those who end up with cervical cancer after not being screened will likely think "I wish I'd done..." But cancer is not caused by not being screened. Not being screened does not mean someone should be denied treatment in the future. Women should not be berated or shamed for making a choice. Especially choices about their own bodies.

Excellent post! ^

@ShhDoNotTell

Because of internalised misogyny. I think many of the comments on this thread are horrendous. Women policing other women about something which is completely personal and private, because then it makes them feel better about their own ‘choice.’

I say ‘choice’ because smear programmes like this one are just marketing campaigns, complete with guilt-trip adverts and slogans, and hiding the actual facts that would allow women to make informed decisions about their own bodies.

ANOTHER excellent post!!! ^

Yes, you can still get cervical cancer even if you've never had sex.

@Sarahcoggles As I believe they will give me a hard time and not actually listen to what I want. I'm sure they will try bullying me into it and I don't want the agro.

Women under 25 are not screened because the risks associated with unnecessary treatment far outweigh the benefits of screening.

Women with symptoms don't need a smear test - they need an urgent gynae referral under the 2 week pathway.

I've not seen anyone on this thread say that they don't want a smear because they are embarrassed. They mention pain and trauma, but not embarrassment.

Same here. I can not tolerate any medical intervention. They would have to dart me from a distance to even have an initial assessment.

Whilemyguitar - I don't understand your logic. You don't want a mammogram but in the next breath you're saying that you shouldn't be denied the treatment that you deserve which, if you found a lump would be a mammogram!

Even those who've never been sexually active?

You do know you can get cervical cancer if you've never had sex? Yes, the odds are lower, but it's still possible.

A mammogram isn’t treatment, it’s screening.

@ElBandito
Twat and stupid are 2 different words and meanings! As you well know!

I don't "TELL" people what to do ever!

At the end of the day it's a personal choice and I believe that a 2 minute procedure which I accept is uncomfortable for some more than others is worth doing.

I too have had abnormal smears when I was 19. Thankfully in Scotland snd was treated. If England I wouldn't have been offered until 25.

The nhs are not going to waste money and resources if this wasn't worth it!

A mammogram isn’t treatment, it’s screening.

But if you find a lump, the first step will be a mammogram, before any treatment. So why not have the mammogram as a preventative measure, rather than wait til you find a lump?

Because some people do not want screening that they may find invasive or may give a false positive. Some people don’t want to spend time worrying about this stuff but would rather be proactive when symptomatic. It’s not that difficult to understand.

But the mammogram would happen “if” a lump was found. A lump might not ever be found, and no mammogram performed, thus saving the nhs. You’re making the assumption that all women who decline screening will suffer from terrible stage 4 cancer, and they wont.
Screen is about choice. To try and blackmail people into it by threatening to withhold treatment if something is found later is just wrong.

This. Not undergoing screening involves risk. Undergoing screening also carries risk. For example : for each woman whose life is saved through breast cancer screening, around three will be diagnosed with a breast cancer that would have never caused harm or death. This means that some will be exposed to the potential side effects of treatment, and worry of a cancer diagnosis, when they didn’t need to be.

Every woman should consider their individual risk factors and make an informed choice. No-one should be shamed into undergoing screening if they feel it is not what they want. Some of the comments to the OP are very uninformed.

news.cancerresearchuk.org/2018/03/06/overdiagnosis-when-finding-cancer-can-do-more-harm-than-good/

@Teacupsandtoast - The national screening programme these days is to screen for hpv, not to look at the smear. They don’t bother to look at your smear unless the hpv test they do comes back positive. If you are therefore willing to pay for a private hpv test in order to avoid a free smear test, you are willing to waste your money, as you will be paying for what you would be getting for free every three years, anyway.

I opted out very easily many years ago. YANBU.

A mammogram after finding a lump isn't treatment any more than having your blood pressure checked or bloods taken are. They are used for diagnosing, for further information. Treatment is what comes after this. The drugs, the surgery etc. Screening is neither diagnosing nor treatment.

Because some people do not want screening that they may find invasive or may give a false positive. Some people don’t want to spend time worrying about this stuff but would rather be proactive when symptomatic. It’s not that difficult to understand.

I'm sorry but I do find it difficult to understand. People who would 'rather be proactive when symptomatic' are opening themselves up to way more invasive procedures. If you don't like the thought of a mammogram, try having a mastectomy like my friend who didn't go for screening, found a lump by which time she had to lose her breast. Another friend who didn't have a lump but had cancer discovered by her mammogram also had a mastectomy and was told a few months later would probably have been too late. A hysterectomy is way more uncomfortable than a smear. Chemo and radiotherapy are not pleasant either. Of course, you could be clear and have undergone the discomfort of screening 'for nothing' But without screening you are gambling with the unknown. So no, I really don't understand it. But as has been said many times on this thread, your body, your choice.

The article is interesting because in treating non lethal cancers, it can result in artificially skewing the cancer survival rates to make them appear more favourable.

What dreadful scaremongering. Shame on you.

It’s again assuming that everyone who declines screening is ultimately going to be diagnosed with a horrible cancer

But how can they find a problem if you aren't screened?

Yes I do know that thank you. But it's a very low risk, and as I had no other risk factors (other than my age) I was happy with my decision to not have screening until I became sexually active.

I'd make the same decision again, especially now that they only actually screen the cells for changes if you're HPV postive. There was zero chance of me having HPV so my sample would never be checked for changes, and any non HPV related changes would never have been picked up. So the screening would have been entirely pointless.