I’ve never had a smear test and I don’t want one either

[Seventeenstars]

Controversial I guess, I’m 36.
I don’t think it’s necessary, as I’ve read about my risk factors and I don’t meet the criteria. All the men I’ve slept with (without protection) were virgins and yes I know they were for sure.
I also have no family history of any cancer.
My partner has prostate cancer in both sides of his family, his dad has it currently and he’s not even been offered a screening test for this.
I find this so frustrating and contradictory when women and men are treated so differently and if you refuse smear or breast screening you’re seen as an awful person, and those who do are morally superior.
Men aren’t coerced into invasive internal examinations.
I have an aversion to having things inserted in me internally and feel I have a right to that decision regarding my body.
There are home tests for HPV available, which I have done myself in the past - all clear.
My question is why do they persist with this archaic procedure when there are other options available?

I keep getting phone calls from my GP surgery trying to persuade me to book a test. I don’t understand why they’re always pushing it, but just totally dismiss other medical issues, which has been my experience several times.
Do they get extra commission for this or something?
There are even pop up ‘clinics’ and drop in sessions going ahead near me.

Of course I know I’ll be bombarded with replies saying I’m selfish, stupid and uneducated. I’ve even read other women saying that those who refuse should be denied any medical care!
But I have done my research and I am more than aware of the implications.

To clear up some misinformation, this article points out that in Papanicolaou’s clinical trials beginning 1939:

"The researchers diagnosed 179 cases of cancer, 127 of which were cervical cancer. Nearly all the cervical cancer cases were invisible to the eye and visual inspection of the cervix and would not have been discovered without looking at cells under a microscope."

Cervical cancer is nearly always not discovered by a GP looking at a woman's cervix. Other gynaecological cancers or conditions may sometimes be diagnosed because of visible cervical or vaginal changes, but those are, I believe, usually symptomatic in other ways (e.g. pain, unusual menstrual bleeding etc), and usually only affect older women.

So these days, with HPV being all that's tested for, not cancerous cells, there's probably very little reason to have a smear test unless you're experiencing any symptoms you'd like to have checked, or are at higher risk of any other gynaecological cancers. Although of course, if you don't mind a smear test, there's no reason not to!

Also, self-tests don't require the cervix to be touched - you just have to insert the swab about 4-5cms deep, and move it around the vaginal walls gently but thoroughly for about 20 seconds. It's very simple. This can either be done at a GP's office behind the curtain (what I did at my last test) or apparently at home.

As for rates of cervical cancer in countries where self-testing is now the norm, I'm not sure, but I do know that in NZ, so many women who had avoided smears for years chose to do the newly offered self-test, that the system was swamped. Short-term chaos, but long-term a good sign, I think.

See the thing is, you seem to have latched on to HPV as the cause of cervical cancer. It's the main cause but it's not the only cause. I'm not sure why you've said you've 'done your research' but disregarded that bit.

I'm not arsed if you or anyone else goes for any type of screening. If you do develop cancer then obviously you'll just die from it, if you won't allow anyone at the area it's in. Life goes on. You do you.

Why the thread though if you're so convinced?

For anyone who is interested, there are clear instructions for the self screen here.

https://healthed.govt.nz/products/cervical-screening-how-to-do-the-hpv-self-test-a3-portrait-poster-he1167

Why do you consider being repeatedly offered a smear you don't want as 'unfair'?

Annoying and repetitive maybe, but why unfair?

People who are evangelical about health issues I don't engage in are also annoying and repetitive, but I don't find it 'unfair' that they consider themselves a higher form of human because they eg don't eat meat or bathe in turmeric or whatever.

HPV is not the only cause of cervical cancer, but it is the only thing that is tested for at a standard smear test.

Non-HPV cervical cancers will usually only be detected once they have progressed enough to become symptomatic, and the woman goes to the GP to report abnormal menstrual bleeding, or pain. Because of this later detection, non-HPV cervical cancers usually have a poorer prognosis.

She has 'latched onto' that because that's precisely what a smear test tests for, for a few years now. That's exactly what her research has shown and so lead her to conclude she doesn't need a test.

How would you suggest she gets checked for abnormal cells changes/pre cancerous cells?

A little discomfort (and it’s no worse than the dentist) can save your life.

I was highlighting how many women have gone through such pain and yes,perhaps indignity to have treatment and make future treatments better women to be able to access improved treatments - and when I hear of people who reject a 3 minute test that could highlight this dreadful disease amongst other disease it makes me really quite cross.
The arrogance I speak of is the refusal to have the test, the comparison to a test for a male cancer which if you have symptoms of any kind means a Dr has to perform an intimate, comparatively equal examination.

Had the OP seen someone struggle with ovarian cancer and leave a young family without their mum, or indeed had symptoms of the disease (as I have) she would be very grateful of any test whatsoever- I was on the 14 day cancer pathway last year for endometrial cancer (it was ok) and the investigations I had weren’t pleasant but it is vital for a women to access these treatments.

What I want to know, if nobody is allowed up her hooter for medical checks full stop. Would she even go and get seen to if she did show signs of a problem? Leaving a kid motherless to make a point type of thing.

She didn't just touch on smears. It was childbirth related checks and mammograms as well. Which says it's a thinking of I'll not have any medical checks full stop because I don't think it's necessary.

This strong way of thinking goes far beyond smear tests.

But that still doesn't answer the question of how she would get checked - she's already done an at home smear test.

I totally get that about funds being finite and totally respect that and I don't disagree. But one of my points is that woman going for smears are under the impression that a smear test is 'looking for abnormal cell changes' when for the vast majority it is simply an HPV screen and nothing more. If the OP is testing for HPV herself, she is doing exactly what the NHS do, so she doesn't need to go for smears

Has she though?

If a self HPV test comes back positive then there are of course decisions to make about whether to go for further screening. I would imagine someone who has chosen to do the self test knows this and would expect to follow it up, otherwise why pay for the test?

Yes its in her original post she's done an at home HPV test and it was clear. So if she does these say every 3 years and its negative, its the same thing.

There is no such thing as an at home smear test. There is an HPV test which according to the op's first post she has used.

"There are home tests for HPV available, which I have done myself in the past - all clear."

That's my point. If the test came back positive then it's absolutely into the stirrups. Why would you want to risk that if you had such an aversion to internals by medical professionals to the point you have a section to avoid them?

Like those being breathalysed and trying not to breathe too hard into the thing.

But like I said, I'm not arsed if someone wants to take that gamble. It's their life.

There's no point crossing that bridge before you come to it.
Avoiding an unnecessary procedure makes sense where there is a less intrusive alternative.

I just had to post, after a chuckle…serious subject but a little light heartedness is allowed “up her hooter”!

I am going to be laughing all day!

Still missing my point.

Why would you want to risk even getting to that stage. I'll be surprised if the OP has even done a test and has relied on her sexual past to guide her.

She posted for a reason and has been very firm about her convictions.

It is being offered as an option:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-testing-kits-for-lifesaving-checks-against-cervical-cancer

It is a secondary option aimed at those that don't usually attend clinical appointments because it isn't the gold standard.

I don't understand what you mean by why risk getting to that stage? What stage?

There's a big difference between going for an unnecessary procedure (smear vs swab test) vs one that is necessary (smear if HPV found).
If the op says she has carried out a home test, I believe her. Nothing about this approach has been negligent.

Interesting — that article says cervical cancer screening take-up rates stand at 68.8%. It appears OP is far from alone.

Why would you risk doing a test that could show you need intervention?

You believe her, I don't.

Yep, this. We are behind the curve in a number of respects

Personally I think not taking up the offer of a health screening is the wrong decision. I'm also autistic, but personally I have no problem with getting a smear test done. I'm in Scotland where they're done every five years, but it used to be every three years and I think changing it was a mistake, frankly I think the more screening the better. I haven't had the HPV jab as I left school a few years before it was rolled out, but I should probably look into getting it.

No one is saying that a smear is a fun experience, but it only takes a few minutes. I do recognise there are people who struggle with them for various reasons, but if they can get through it, a few minutes of discomfort is surely better than treatment for advanced cancer.