Heart disease is closely linked with oral health. I would argue that the time women are spending on this thread berating other women about a screening that has not changed the ‘numbers saved’ that were recorded pre-screening, but has done a wonderful job at convincing women that removing parts of their cervix equates to ‘being saved from cancer’ when there’s no way to tell whether the abnormal cells will go on to develop cancer, would be better spent petitioning the government for better dentistry.
But that’s not going to happen when we are in a society that socialises girls to shut up and comply to the herd mentality.
You’re far more likely to get a whole host of other cancers than you are cervical. It’s pretty rare. The reasons for someone not wishing to attended are varied and nuanced.
Brow-beating and guilt-tripping are hideous tactics.
As for the comments about ‘well, don’t expect treatment if you do happen to get cancer then’ — how utterly devoid of critical thinking. Screening does not save you. And many women who attend screening go on to develop the cancer they are screened for. How does on intellectually, in good faith, equate an informed individual decision ad to whether to attend screening with treatment for a cancer should one become symptomatic?
Most of the posters here clearly have no idea what screening is, how it works, what the results mean, or why someone may not wish to attend. THAT, in my opinion, is the insanity here.