"...because it short-circuits their own later decision making, and because it could deeply freak them out."

Huh? First of all, this is information for the PARENTS, not the kid, which the parents can share or not as THEY, not the Doctor, think is wise and timely. We should deny people information because it might upset them? What the hell kind of patronizing, controlling, medieval thinking is that?

Yes there are preventative steps short of mastectomies, say much more frequent and regular checks, at an earlier age. Information for the Doctor once a preliminary diagnosis is made. Immediate access to any new treatments or preventative measures that appear. And great peace of mind for those that clear the test.

The down-side? Some people might be upset, better they should live in blissful risky ignorance, reliant on the whim of their doctor. Right.

As the parent with a child with a serious life-long medical condition, I have gotten full disclosure bad medical news repeatedly (and, thankfully, a good deal of less than worst-case scenario bad news too). I am always grateful, to at least know the score, potential outcomes, and what isn't known. It wasn't always easy, but I was grateful. And it immeasurable improved my (and my child's) relationship with the doctor, to be treated with respect and trust, on an equal footing.

I don't know where medical and scientific folk keep getting the idea that their expertise in particular technological technique makes them experts on psychology, ethics, and family dynamics. Or gives them the right to withhold desperately desired information. Arrogance, is what it is.

It seems like a rather odd choice; one of the advantages of breast feeding is that it is always right there, ready to go, heated and everything, without any paraphernalia to hump around, clean, keep track of, whatever. And from my somewhat limited experience, more women seem to have trouble pumping than nursing; it isn't always easy and a lot of women can't manage it very effectively or at all, and then feel guilty and inadequate.

But it seems to be a rather silly thing to get worked up about.

The problem is exactly that we don't have what the right wing says we do: a partisan press. In an effort to be neutral, the only thing the press can cover is the horse race, the techniques and insider stuff, and god forbid that anyone should look at the content.

The best journalism in America is, and has been for a long time, sports journalism. Read a local paper for its coverage of the local NFL or MLB or whatever franchise: it is clearly partisan in that it wants the home to team to win, but it is critical, incisive, questioning, and even from time to time poetic. Except when it covers intra-city sports, then it has to get all neutral and hence boring and superficial.

Phooey on being neutral, I say. I'd far rather read a reporter who wore their Democratic or Republican sentiments on their sleeve, and then went into the race on that basis, even if I disagreed with it. It would help me more as a voter too; nonsense about campaign tactics and pre-news news help me not at all, what I need to understand is what is being proposed and how it would cash out in my life rather than in the campaign, and I feel rather let down by the 4th estate.