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.

My friends company did one that included a mammogram which she hadn’t had because of her age. Breast cancer. They did full pay when she was off plus any private treatment she needed too
she’s v grateful!

They don’t “refuse to employ” if you decline. The doctor doing the medical has to record the fact that you declined, which may, or may not, affect the offer.

I’m a partner in a law firm. It’s standard practice for law firms to require new partner hires (at least if you’re coming into the equity) to have a medical as part of the offer process; just as it’s normal that all partners have to have a medical every year. The role of a partner is to bring in work and generate fees for the firm. If it looks like you’re going to have a long spell off sick and the risk of that can be identified before you join, then it wouldn’t be a good business decision for the firm to have you join.

Equity partners are not employees; they are self-employed and work together as partners. So this is not a requirement of an offer of employment in the legal sense of the word “employment”.

And also the risk you are prepared to accept by being screened. Some of these apply to all women, so everyone ought to be aware of the possibility of being offered treatment that wouldn't ultimately be needed, and they can weigh this up however they wish. Others are age related, so a 60 year old doesn't need to bother considering the link between colposcopy and preterm birth but a 25 year old who plans a family does.

Not the point of the thread, I know, but where are you finding all these virgin men?

Asking for a friend are you? 😅

My personal stance is that I have always and will always take advantage of the tests, but at the end of the day, and irrelevant of the reasons why, it simply amounts to the level of risk you are prepared to accept by not being screened.

it doesn’t simply amount to the risk of being unscreened. The OP is not unscreened because she has done an HPV test and she is posing a valid question about how the test can be made more accessible in an alternative format to people who struggle with it.

She literally posted on a forum asking for opinions ("Am I Being Unreasonable?").
If nobody took the time to respond (either positively or negatively) then it would be a pretty shit forum

Well yeah - so pretty silly to tell her nobody gives a shit.

It would indeed. Clearly the quality of the forum is a completely different point from whether anyone gives a shit, however.

My last 2 were both very unpleasant but I still will carry on getting them , I don't feel morally superior just terrified that I'll get something that is easily treated if caught but deadly if not.

Aye, just like we should get people to sign disclaimers that you're not eligible for NHS treatment for certain 'life style' related illness. Hello, people with lung cancer, Type 2 diabetes, cardio vascular disease, osteoarthritis/worn out joints. Or reckless driver mangled in car accidents

< edited to say I was being sarcastic >

I thought the article below (from the Irish Health Service Executive) was interesting, though it’s a few years old now. It says that research in the Netherlands has indicated that self-swabbing is about 6% less sensitive than getting a professional to do it, though the addition of self-swabbing is very positive from the pov of reaching previously unscreened populations. The reference to the research is included too (haven’t had a chance to look at it yet).

https://www2.healthservice.hse.ie/organisation/nss/news/self-sampling-for-hpv-testing-and-cervicalcheck/

Because statistically, breast cancer is significantly more common among women - 1 in 7 women at some point in their lifetime according to gov.uk and Breast Cancer UK. In contrast, cervical cancer has an incidence rate of 1 out of 142 women in their lifetime

Didn't really answer the question I asked though did ya?

I said who on earth is this employer who will very likely refuse to employ a woman if she doesn't have a cervical smear? That is bizarrely controlling and manipulative, and I am interested to know, so I can make sure that I - and everyone I know - NEVER applies for a job there. I would also like to know so I can look into them, and see if what they're doing is illegal/discriminatory.

Frankly, that practice sounds fucked up to me, and archaic - but also like something out of a dystopian novel. Sounds like a plotline in Handmaids Tale....

.

I don’t think anyone is going to disclose their employer on the internet.

In the UK (and the US), it is generally unlawful for a company to insist on a mammogram (or smear test) as a condition of employment/continued employment. Other tha. For occupations I struggle to identify, non-job-related medical procedures are not generally permitted and can lead to employ,ent claims.

Mohammed Fayed used to require gynae exams carried out on his female employees. There was some surprise, distaste and dismay when this was revealed

I don't think anyone is expecting that poster to disclose that she works for WHSmith in Maidenhead. More that, say, she serves in the armed forces or is a glamour/lingerie model

PP wouldn’t be able to “make sure they and nobody they knew applied there, and look into them” without a company name.

I may have gotten that wrong, but if they were after a business name, I’d be very shocked if anyone was comfortable sharing that here.

Fine that’s your decision. I’m not sure why you have posted, are you wanting a discussion, people to try and persuade you to have them?

I work in healthcare and we always respect the decision of each individual on their own health choices, whether to have tests and/or treatment.

My own view is I’ve had cancer. It was brutal but could have been worse. I always have had (and always will have) all the screening tests offered to me. Smear tests, mammograms and stool screening. None are pleasant but if they detect cancer earlier it’s far easier to treat.

Yep. As someone said earlier, it's a slippery slope. If you're going to refuse treatment for women who refuse smears/breastscreening, (if they get cervical, or breast cancer,) then we need to refuse treatment to anyone who smokes, drinks alcohol, takes any kind of recreational drug, drives, does any kind of contact sport, and any sport that involves risk, and let's chuck cycling in there hey, and why not skateboarding too?! And also we must refuse treatment for ANYone who has a BMI over 32. They brought the ailments/illnesses on themselves by being obese right.........? (Oh, and definitely refuse treatment to men who refuse a prostate examination!!!) 🙄

It's bad enough that women were forced/bullied/blackmailed into cervical smears 20-25+ years ago, with the threat of withdrawal of the birth control bill if they didn't comply.

Utterly disgusting practice, forcing women into risking getting pregnant if they refuse the smear, and turning them into nothing more than cattle, and brood mares.

Thank GOD it is not a thing now. Though if this thread is anything to go by, some posters would happily have this disgusting practice brought back. Same ones who work for companies who refuse to employ women unless they have a cervical smear probably! (I am still waiting for someone to tell me who this employer is, but I won't hold my breath.)🙄

.

It also seems a particularly bad idea for a smear test advocate to moot given that much cervical cancer is sexually transmitted. The potential negative implications of that one should be obvious.

No. Social darwinism is the concept that a person is aiding "the natural selection of species" by their own negligence, recklessness or stupidity.

I.e not electing to having a procedure that could save you from a premature death.

Nope. Social Darwinism is the viewing of societies as organisms which are subject to natural selection/survival of the fittest. The theory was used to support a lot of nasty stuff tbh. Now discredited by anyone serious, thankfully.

See ibe not been offered a mammogram as yet ( dont know what age they start) but would be unlikely to have it. Ive already had enough bits chopped out and after effects due to the cervical cancer. I wouldnt be prepared to do it again for breast cancer espe ially if i had no sypmtoms and it had to be discovered by random screening

Nope you're definitely thinking of the Darwin awards. It's worth learning what social Darwinism means if you're going to use it in arguments as it can have quite unpleasant undertones that I don't think you mean.