Breast Health – The Great Debate!

Last Updated on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 07:27 Written by Natural Health Team Wednesday, 19 October 2011 07:27

Health Information about Breast Health – The Great Debate!

Recently the news has been overloaded with information and opinions over women’s health and mortality as it relates to the use of mammography and self breast exams. With all of this information it is hard to find out what women should do to care for their body. What are the guidelines to follow? Recent studies have documented that there is little to no link between self breast exams, mammograms and the actual mortality rate of women with breast cancer. In this article we will focus not on the answer to that enormous question, but on the ambiguity behind that statement.

It has been the standard provided by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) that women 40 or older have a mammogram with or without a clinical breast exam every 1-2 years to maintain proper breast health. This recommendation was based on two factors. (1) Clinical studies in women 50-69 demonstrated a 30% reduction in the breast cancer mortality rate when screened annually or biannually (http://www.acpm.org/breast.htm) and (2) the assumption that a women’s breast tissue at the age of 40 would yield similar results. Unfortunately a similar correlation has yet to be found, prompting the new assertion that a women should wait until 50 to have her first mammogram. But is this right? Can one assume tissue changes occur in every woman at a specific age? And why is it important to this debate?

Mammograms are actually not recommended for younger women under the age of 40 for a very good reason; their breasts are denser than the breasts of women over the age of 50. A mammogram produces an x-ray that shows dense areas in white and less dense areas in shades of gray or black. For diagnostic purposes breast abnormalities or lesions will show up as white. Therefore utilizing mammography on young women is not as effective since their very normal, denser tissue make it very difficult for radiologists to read and come to accurate conclusions. It is the use of mammography on women whose breasts are denser than anticipated that actually leads to the misdiagnosis and painful often unnecessary procedures that have sparked the debate. So is the question of a cutoff for the use of mammography about age or breast tissue density?

It is in fact the uncertainty involved in x-raying a denser breast and the potentially frightening and unnecessary outcome that led to the suggestion that women under 40 years of age learn how to correctly perform a monthly self breast exam. How effective is this though? The argument states that whether a woman follows this religiously or not that the percentage chance of finding an abnormality is the same as a woman who does not. Why? Because the majority of the time a lump is large enough to find, you will probably stumble across it as well. But does that mean you should stop trying to find them before they are that obvious?

The bottom line is that breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and is the second leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States which in turn makes it the number one women’s health issue. Unfortunately the study of and results produced have not had enough time to resolve the paradox. We know definitively that at the age of 50 one should have a mammogram, that our breast tissue can provide a reliable diagnostic tool. We also know that self help exams can be helpful but don’t always show everything that is going on inside. So what is a woman to do? Know your history, know your risk factors, be as informed as you can be and discuss your options with your doctor to come up with a diagnostic treatment you are comfortable living with; and if you don’t see eye to eye with your doctor on this issue then do what you would do if you were unhappy with a pair of shoes, shop around. The health of your body and your breasts is by far the most important investment you can make!

In the shocking and hilarious documentary ORGASM INC., filmmaker Liz Canner takes a job editing erotic videos for a drug trial for a pharmaceutical company. Her employer is developing what they hope will be the first Viagra drug for women that wins FDA approval to treat a new disease: Female Sexual Dysfunction (FSD). Liz gains permission to film the company for her own documentary. Initially, she plans to create a movie about science and pleasure but she soon begins to suspect that her employer, along with a cadre of other medical companies, might be trying to take advantage of women (and potentially endanger their health) in pursuit of billion dollar profits. ORGASM INC. is a powerful look inside the medical industry and the marketing campaigns that are literally and figuratively reshaping our everyday lives around health, illness, desire — and that ultimate moment: orgasm.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Find More Health Care Articles

The Health Care Debate And Its Impact On Substance Abuse And Mental Health Services

Last Updated on Wednesday, 21 September 2011 10:20 Written by Natural Health Team Wednesday, 21 September 2011 10:20

Health Information about The Health Care Debate And Its Impact On Substance Abuse And Mental Health Services

With all the heated debate over health care reform, just what was supposed to happen to the often ignored areas of substance abuse and mental health services? At least, a new law that took effect at the start of 2010 will give parity to these services in large employee group insurance plans.

Although these important elements of health services weren’t entirely forgotten in the speeches in Congress and around the nation at public hearings, were they going to receive their proper attention, even as agreement on health care reform remained divisive?

In a Dec. 16, 2009, speech, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius spoke about the need for mental health and substance abuse services as she addressed health care providers and others near Baltimore.

Sebelius spoke of “the huge opportunity we have in the next couple of years to make some big improvements in the lives of Americans with mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders.”

She added: “There are a lot of changes happening right now that could have a big impact on behavioral health: parity, health insurance reform, the growing popularity of integrated care models, an increased focus on prevention, huge gains in our understanding of the science behind mental illness and substance abuse.”

]]>

Sebelius made no promises, though, leaving future measures for these dual diagnosis treatment services up in the air, but she did stress the need to work together on a solution. “These changes are creating a lot of potential for progress, but we also know that nothing is guaranteed. The integrated care models that spread could have a strong mental health component.  Or they could not.  We might find effective ways to apply some of the research we’re doing.  Or we might not.  In order to get the most out of the next few years, all of us in government, the private sector, and the non-profit world are going to have to work hard to steer these changes in a direction that benefits our friends and neighbors with mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders,” she said.

What was most encouraging about her speech was the recognition of the seriousness of the problem and how common it is. She cited figures that “about one in five Americans will have a mental illness this year” and “almost half of Americans will have a mental illness in their lifetime.”

While health care reform is still up for debate, there is the implementation of the Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act, which Congress passed last year and went into effect Jan. 1, 2010, for employer group health plans with more than fifty employees.

“Thanks to parity, millions of Americans with mental illness and substance abuse disorders will get the care they need.  It’s going to help people afford their medicines.  It’s going to make them less likely to put off important care.  And it’s also an important symbolic step,” Sebelius said.

The law is directed to put mental health benefits on equal terms in many health plans today and applies to all plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), including self-insured plans.

But just like the debate over health care, more focus is needed on these essential services.

Find More Mental Health Articles