Sarah Palin "Reads" The 'Times'
Sarah Palin has questions!
Now, tonight, more disconcerting news – the New York Times reports of new guidelines to scale back cervical cancer screenings. The recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists comes on the heels of another recommendation to limit breast cancer screenings with mammograms. There are many questions unanswered for me, but one which immediately comes to mind is whether costs have anything to do with these recommendations. The current health care debate elicits great concern because of its introduction of socialized medicine in America and the inevitable rationed care. We need to carefully watch this debate as it coincides with Capitol Hill's debate and determine whether we are witnessing the early stages of that rationed care before the Senate bill is rushed through as well….
Obviously the first thought that comes to mind when hearing of these new recommendations from bureaucratic panels is "rationed care." It's fair – and healthy – to ask if that's what Washington has in mind with a government-controlled takeover of a health care system.
Hmm. Maybe we can find an answer in, say, that New York Times publication she cited earlier.
Arriving on the heels of hotly disputed guidelines calling for less use of mammography, the new recommendations might seem like part of a larger plan to slash cancer screening for women. But the timing was coincidental, said Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia, the chairwoman of a panel in the obstetricians' group that developed the Pap smear guidelines. The group updates its advice regularly based on new medical information, and Dr. Iglesia said the latest recommendations had been in the works for several years, "long before the Obama health plan came into existence."
She called the timing crazy, uncanny and "an unfortunate perfect storm," adding, "There's no political agenda with regard to these recommendations."
Dr. Iglesia said the argument for changing Pap screening was more compelling than that for cutting back on mammography – which the obstetricians' group has staunchly opposed – because there is more potential for harm from the overuse of Pap tests. The reason is that young women are especially prone to develop abnormalities in the cervix that appear to be precancerous, but that will go away if left alone. But when Pap tests find the growths, doctors often remove them, with procedures that can injure the cervix and lead to problems later when a woman becomes pregnant, including premature birth and an increased risk of needing a Caesarean.
To be fair, this information wasn't presented until the third paragraph, so you can see how she might have missed it. Still, asked and answered. I'm sure she'll update shortly.
I don't think Sarah's the only one taking issue with these recommended changes. Apparently some think science has a misogynistic bias in it.
Based on everything I have read around this issue, this seems like a case where the medical establishment is trying to ADMIT THEY MADE A MISTAKE and do the right thing, in the interests of women's health, and are being attacked for it. It would be like accusing doctors of being antifeminist for disrecommending HRT (after pushing it for years!) when it became clear that HRT was causing demonstrable harm. You know what's misogynist? As a woman, keeping yourself in a state of constant fear and trepidation that your body is out to get you, and always already considering yourself as a consumer of medical services rather than a person.
I have always had a hard time knowing if it's the Mammogram Industrial Complex (MIC) that insists my boobs need to be squished annually or genuine medical need. Since I have crap insurance, today I opt for the former.
So painful. Especially when there's not that much to squish to start with.
Cold. Also.
Could the Obama administration's policy of Sexist Socialism lead to every American woman dying of chick cancer and then being replaced by either Communist robots or Mexican immigrants? It is a question that remains unanswered for me…
Am I to believe Sarah Palin actually uses the word "elicit"?
'coincides.'
Skip to the next paragraph and we learn that the pap smears really only pertain to girls who can't keep their skirts down and legs crossed.
Abstinence works. Problem solved.
Or, you know, condoms. What? Would it be preferable to pretend it's not purely a sexually transmitted disease? Because it is. Think of all the money wasted on testing—and scaring! and it hurts!—low-risk monogamous and non-sexually active and condom-using women since the pap became "standard."
I disagree with this. For a few reasons. For one, "low risk" is difficult to define. You may notice that doctors say that condom use may not prevent the spread of HPV, that it is a virus that may be transferred from skin to skin contact. In reality, the only absence of risk is sex between virgins.
Yet I recall a study that screened the blood of children who were never sexually active, and something like 20% of them had HPV in their system. The hypothesis was that it is a virus that could possibly be spread from things they put in their mouths, I believe.
The scarring and pain come from tests or procedures that are follow ups to abnormal paps, such as a colposcopy when a biopsy is preformed, or removal of a lesion. In addition to the issues mentioned in the Times article, from what I understand, is that doctors are learning more about how large populations deal with the HPV virus, and that most people's immune systems are able to get rid of it on their own, over time. The colposcopy, which was the go-to next step, is not only expensive and sometimes painful, but a source of unnecessary anxiety due to a lack of discourse.
@garge I said "scaring" and I meant "scaring"
I realized that afterward (took scarring from the article), but didn't think it changed my gist. I just think the logic of risk groups is broken down in this topic. I think that there are people who have never been sexually active (who, I agree, should not be subjected to annual tests), and then there is *everyone else.*
Truth doesn't matter. Facts don't matter. If you repeat it enough times, people will believe it. I for one advocate Democrats finally learning this lesson and just fighting back. It's not a bad thing.
Embrace the Dark Side, Luke. Feel your anger.
Sarah Palin only has to say it once to get a legion of idiots to buy in.
The disconnect for me is that for years, proponents of “tort reform†have been screaming that lawsuits drive up the cost of medical care because doctors are forced to order so many tests, and “practice defensive medicine†(or, as it is also known, “practice medicine.â€) What we are seeing now is doctors re-writing their standards of care, stating that screening tests are either ineffectual or actually harmful. Were it not for the health care legislation the GOP is duty bound to vanquish, wouldn’t Palin, Coburn et al be happy that these new studies chiefly serve to insulate physicians from culpability against failing to order these tests?
Bingo. And don't think for a minute the "market"–the Insurance Industry, and all it props up–don't want the standards of care rewritten to lower costs, as well as, they hope, lower malpractice exposure. Because, to prove someone malpracticed, you gotta prove they deviated from the standard of care.
Death Panels my colonoscoped ass.
I firmly agree with this logic … except in this case, I do disagree (with hopeful optimism in place of my general cynicism to all things medical insurance industry related). Cervical cancer really does take years to develop, and atypical cells on the cervix can take time to sort themselves out. Compromised immune systems and smoking can strongly affect this (which would be taken as an exception by a gyne), but in most cases, the former protocol cost unnecessary money, pain, and anxiety.