Healthy Debate
  • Search
  • Health topics
  • Debates
  • Special Series
  • All topics
  • All articles
Most popular today
  • COVID-19 (567)
  • Vaccines (138)
  • Opioids (52)
  • Cancer (162)
  • Addiction (172)
  • Racism (38)
  • Alcohol (23)
  • Infectious Disease (682)
  • Marijuana (22)
  • Tobacco (21)
  • Aging (212)
  • Dementia (45)
  • Long-Term Care (84)
  • Children and Youth (277)
  • Education (383)
  • Medical Education (191)
  • Depression (26)
  • Misinformation (109)
  • Nursing (29)
  • End of Life (182)
  • In Memoriam (5)
  • MAiD (33)
  • Environment (69)
  • Climate Change (35)
  • About
  • Subscribe
Opinion
Dec 13, 2011
by Shelagh McRae

Screening mammography

0 Comments
Share on:

As a rural family doctor I have to factor in travel costs when referring my patients for specialized services. Costs of travel include not only transportation expenses but time from work and home. Increasingly patients are being forced to travel again and again after having tests.

A good example is breast screening which causes many false alarms. For every woman who has a lethal breast cancer caught in time for a cure, several more have cancers diagnosed that would never have caused them problems. They and their daughters will have their lives changed needlessly. Additionally, overdiagnosed rural women (and their drivers) will have hours on the road, days and often nights away from work and family and are at increased risk of being involved in a motor vehicle collision. In more remote communities women are being flown out for screening.
Mammograms are easy to count and government can point with pride to numbers which show they are working on cancer “prevention”. Physicians are paid to meet targets to increase those numbers. Unfortunately the costs are high and often hidden.
Cancer screening is early detection, not prevention. At a seminar I attended on how to persuade patients to go for screening mammograms, a physician asked, “What if the money spent on transporting their women for breast cancer screening and followup was instead spent on building and maintaining sports facilites (walking tracks, arenas) in remote communities? Wouldn’t that truly prevent disease and premature deaths?”
I say yes.
Share on:
Author

Shelagh McRae

Contributor

Republish this article

Republish this article on your website under the creative commons licence.

Learn more

The comments section is closed.

Author

Shelagh McRae

Contributor

Republish this article

Republish this article on your website under the creative commons licence.

Learn more

Donate to Healthy Debate

Your support allows us to publish journalism about healthcare in Canada that is free to read and free to republish. Donations are tax-deductible.

Donate

Join the mailing list

Sign up below to receive our newsletter every Thursday morning.

You can republish our articles online or in print for free. Read more.

Republish us
  • About
  • Contribute
  • Contact
  • Community Guidelines
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy

Republish this article

  1. Please use the invisible republishing code below on the page where you republish this article.
  2. Please give credit to Healthy Debate and include a link back to our home page or the article URL . Our preference is a credit at the top of the article and that you include our logo  (available by clicking the link below).

Please read the full set of instructions for republication here.