Has anyone decided not to go for a routine mammogram?

[hattie43]

I'm curious to know . I have mine next week and will attend but last time was a nightmare as I was recalled and health anxiety went through the roof . Luckily no cancer . I was reading that about 30% of women don't attend Apparently mammograms don't pick up everything and aren't foolproof , but surely they are better than nothing .

A routine mammogram almost certainly saved my mum’s life so when I am called for my first one I will definitely go.

I'm amazed that people honestly believe that the NHS and nice would pay for a screening that harms more people than it helps the leaflet is not saying that. In a cash strapped NHS we can't even get our operations done.

By definition though a universal screening program will not help everyone, and may harm some. So we can make individual risk-based decisions.

Yes but that's not what I'm saying I'm talking about the claims that are being made that it hurts more people than it helps and that most cancer doesn't need treatment.

blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/do-mammograms-kill-more-women-than-they-save/

this is a fairly old piece, but is still an interesting read from a professional.

Again, have you read the leaflet you get sent?
That's all people are quoting here.
Those are literally the facts as the NHS sees it

There's been a quiet debate over the years about how much overtreatment is acceptable for every life saved. It's nice in the abstract. How many unnecessary mastectomies are okay to save one life?

@jannier If you genuinely want to understand, then there are multiple explanations from WHO, the NHS and NICE about how finely balanced these decisions are at population level, look at Wilson Junger criteria, and how screening works. Then look at breast specifically.

You could start with reading the NHS information others have tried explaining to you. It's all there.

The fact you don't want to believe something, or understand something, doesn't stop it being the case.

Apologies if this has been posted. But it is a large study.

www.bcaction.org/early-detection-does-not-save-lives/

It frequently IS possible to state that a cancer is definitely life threatening. I was given less that 2 years, without treatment

again - you will be told if your cancer is aggressive and invasive or not

If it is aggressive, then you will die without treatment

If it is non invasive, then there is no way to know, in many cases, if it will become dangerous during your lifetime or not, although of course, the older you are, the less likely it is to harm you before your death anyway,

and if that is the type of cancer you have, you are totally at liberty to decline treatment.

Lots of people with this sort of cancer accept treatment anyway, lots are saved by it, lots would never have been harmed, there is no way of knowing which are which

Be brave,

Take painkillers before you go.
It's six squashes each squash is around 20s.

Just had mine on Tuesday boobs still sore but catching cancer early is worth the trauma and pain.

I know many women with aggressive cancers who's lives have been saved by a routine mammogram. ANd some that will never know if it saved them or not, as their cancer was non invasive

@Nimbostratus100 thats not quite what the latest study from the BMJ used here says. www.bcaction.org/early-detection-does-not-save-lives/

I know many people who's lives have been saved

@Nimbostratus100 that’s your small sample. Personally I’d rather take a very very large surveys results as having more basis in reality. Do you know 90,000 women?

for goodness sake, you are talking about 35 years ago! - things have moved on since then.

I know many woman who's lives have been saved by mammograms

And yes, we all know it can come back, but if a mammogram gives you an extra 20 years of life, quite frankly, who wouldn't take it

the study is 2014 …..and is a long term study also backed up by other newer research from medical professionals from around the world. As given by other posters with other scientific links.

The evidence is not there to conclude that there is a need for such a screening program anymore.

The study you are quoting is 10 years old, and referring to women who's cancer was picked up by a mammogram 25 years before that

And yes, we all know it can come back.

But quite frankly, I choose treatment and live another 25 years over no treatment and die before next Christmas

@Nimbostratus100 But those aren't the choices.

Screening looks for very early cancer. So not "die by Christmas" cancer. If you have that, you'll die by Christmas. It looks for "might kill you in next 10-20 years" cancer. Not will. Might.

And at age 60, midway through screening, there's any number of things that might kill you in the next 10-20 years. Might.

@Nimbostratus100 and choosing not to read any other scientific data, not to mention ridiculing professionals who know much more about this. But crack on with your small non scientific data!
im happy you’ve survived, but wonder how you would have felt, if someone had told you the treatment had either been unnecessary or has led to other serious complications. Hopefully with all this research you are ridiculing, that won’t happen to other women.
meanwhile, those that want to make an informed choice, should be able to do so without emotion being involved.

and screening also picks up "die by next Christmas" cancer

and what do you mean, those aren't choices - those are my choices.

I have a good chance of surviving this cancer

I have a good chance of being killed by it returning later on

But if I dont have treatment, I will die by next Christmas

That's what the doctors have literally told you? No treatment- dead by Christmas, treatment you get an extra 20 years, guaranteed? And this cancer was only picked up on screening?

I hope all goes well for you individually.

Your unusual individual experience doesn't change the stats on a population level. Nor does it affect what other people decide based on those stats.

@jannier
How is that relevant? Would you think my opinions about my own body were less important if I didn't?

Why would you choose not to go for a free test that could pick up cancer