A few years ago, my co-workers and I were given a tour of the Breast Health Center at the hospital where we work. They had a brand new machine they showed us, I think for smaller needle biopsies (LanaMD could probably be much more specific - and thanks, BTW). In describing why this machine was so much better, the person mentioned all the problems with biopsies before (pain, scarring, bigger chunks they needed to remove, the fact that the same women tend to have suspicious results, and undergo this over and over). My understanding, not from that talk, is that younger women have more problems with that, because, being pre-menopausal , there's more going with their breasts, so more that is unclear.

Yes, compared to dealing with a diagnosed breast cancer, those are minor. But for most of us, it's also totally unnecessary; and compared to not having to have those things happen, they're problematic.

Technology is improving, which might also change our guidelines. Meantime, I want to hear what the best medical thinking is (and if these new guidelines aren't that, why not?) and not just how we've been doing it for years.

As I wrote on Joan's thread earlier, when the panels discussed mammogram guidelines in the 90's, I decided to wait until I was 50, because (reading what they were saying) mammograms missed enough cancers that existed, and gave too many false positives or reasons to have other treatments, to make them worthwhile. And it wasn't just the "anxiety" of waiting for a second test - it was what such a test entailed. Biopsies, scarring, maybe finding those ductal cancers in situ that evidence even back then suggested might never amount to anything, but if found might bring on disfiguring treatment. And the answer to all those points seems to boil down to it being better than the alternative.

The odds of having some false positive, and getting some further treatment are high - I believe 50% but not sure. The odds of this being totally moot if I never did any screening are 88% - that is, if one in 8 women get breast cancer by the time they're about 90, 7 in 8 don't.

None of that means anyone else should be forced to follow my decision making process. And way too much of our current health system for the working poor ends up being, hope you're in the group that doesn't get sick. I'm not advocating that, or denying access to people/women who want tests (or the treatment tests may indicate), and of course I worry about that danger for people. But I also think it is strange that little of the discussion seems to be about the medical pros and cons of the suggestions, and most on the political.

Some big panel looked into it, determined there were pros and cons both ways, and almost were going to suggest women and doctors decide among themselves, but then determined that would be too confusing (which I thought of as the 'women shouldn't have to worry their pretty little heads about this' conclusion) and came down on the age of 40.

I decided to wait personally until 50, but of course, there is danger that a change in recommendation would mean insurance providers wouldn't pay until then.

BTW, person who worried they'll hold off colonoscopies (sp?) until 50s - that is the current recomendation.

But have to agree with the wonderment - how did these results hit the news just now?

This has got to be some strange moment that will soon pass...

While I am a person of faith, I would not shun you for being an atheist, and I'm not trying to discount or talk you out of your beliefs. But I wonder about the coincidence of your recently having a child, and discovering you're an atheist, and being depressed about a future of lying to your son. However those have interacted, you may be in a place where everything seems more intense right now.

Maybe some of that isn't being postpartum, but being expected to fulfill religious rituals, like Baptism. Is there a way you can put those off for a while, without fully disclosing your feelings?

Certainly, you should be able to be true to your feelings without being treated badly, but you are also allowed to feel your way along, and decide what, and how, you will disclose your feelings and beliefs.

Agree with one of the first letters, not Harding, about Larry King's approach. He didn't badger her. He asks her "why" she settled, and she can't come up with "I wanted to put it all behind me and move on"? But I'm also willing to bet when she heard the caller's question before we did (because they have that 7-second, delay, right), that's why she said no more. How dare they let gay people ask her questions.

would likely help the grieving family who truly likely feels they lost two loved ones that day,

Clockwork Smurf, it is not my intention to pick on you, or your argument personally, but you stated the most concise example of what I find incorrect about this type of argument.

Imagine you have a family member who dies in an unfortunate accident, or an illness (to take the horror of a violent act out of it), and she was in early pregnancy. The majority of your grieving is going to be for the young woman you knew, and have memories of. Yes, there also is grief for a lost pregnancy, but in the case where the fetus was lost through the death of the mother, that will be very secondary, unless the values are pretty screwed up.