> My wife has worked for an OB/GYN since, ...hell, '79. (Has it been > that long?) has had mammograms many times herself, and can't seem to > understand the seemingly constant complaints from women that they > hurt, and that they won't get them as often as they should becuase > they are painful. At least that's what she tells me. I can't give an > informed opinion, obviously, but it seems to me that breast cancer is > a very big deal, has a significant impact not only on those that die > from it, but on the survivors, and the very minor inconvenience of > having their breasts squeezed on a cold plate seems to pale in > comparison to the alternative. Even if it is painful.
> Mastectomies I hear, are painful too, and permanent.
> John P - sympathetic but perplexed.
I agree, John. What's the big deal. Good heavens, it only takes something like 15-20 minutes from start to finish and most of that time is spent on positioning your breast on the cold plate. The time spent in the orange squeezer is way less than a minute a shot.
I have never complained and I have been getting one for quite a few years now.
>> My wife has worked for an OB/GYN since, ...hell, '79. (Has it been >> that long?) has had mammograms many times herself, and can't seem to >> understand the seemingly constant complaints from women that they >> hurt, and that they won't get them as often as they should becuase >> they are painful. At least that's what she tells me. I can't give an >> informed opinion, obviously, but it seems to me that breast cancer is >> a very big deal, has a significant impact not only on those that die >> from it, but on the survivors, and the very minor inconvenience of >> having their breasts squeezed on a cold plate seems to pale in >> comparison to the alternative. Even if it is painful.
>> Mastectomies I hear, are painful too, and permanent.
>> John P - sympathetic but perplexed.
> I agree, John. What's the big deal. Good heavens, it only takes > something like 15-20 minutes from start to finish and most of that time > is spent on positioning your breast on the cold plate. The time spent > in the orange squeezer is way less than a minute a shot.
> I have never complained and I have been getting one for quite a few > years now.
> Joan
Same here, unpleasant but not terribly painful and it's over really fast. Sue D.
On 2008-05-20 08:15:30 -0700, "Jr@Ease" <do.not.send.s...@this.address> said:
> can't seem to > understand the seemingly constant complaints from women that they > hurt, and that they won't get them as often as they should becuase > they are painful. At least that's what she tells me. I can't give an > informed opinion, obviously, but it seems to me that breast cancer is > a very big deal,
Okay, think of it this way. The only screening they can do for testicular cancer (not as common as breast cancer, but it happens) is to mash one testicle between hard, cold plates until it's as flat as it can go without actually causing you to scream. Then hold your breath while the technician goes behind the barrier and flips the switch. The relief when the plates are released is exquisite.
Oh, then we have to do the other one.
Now, how often are YOU going to schedule that test?
I've had sensitive, caring technicians who really TRY not to hurt while doing the test. It hurts anyway. A lot. And yes, breast cancer is a big deal. But it's easy to put off all sorts of maintenance health care because life is so busy, and the test isn't any fun. -- -- Lymaree
Lynn Allen wrote: > Okay, think of it this way. The only screening they can do for > testicular cancer (not as common as breast cancer, but it happens) is to > mash one testicle between hard, cold plates until it's as flat as it can > go without actually causing you to scream. Then hold your breath while > the technician goes behind the barrier and flips the switch. The > relief when the plates are released is exquisite.
> Oh, then we have to do the other one.
> Now, how often are YOU going to schedule that test?
> I've had sensitive, caring technicians who really TRY not to hurt while > doing the test. It hurts anyway. A lot. And yes, breast cancer is a big > deal. But it's easy to put off all sorts of maintenance health care > because life is so busy, and the test isn't any fun.
My cousin had the technician crank down so hard that a number of blood vessels broke and her entire side filled up with blood. She was a very colorful cousin for some time. The results were negative. Not that mammograms are all that accurate to begin with. -- Joanne stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
Once Upon a Midnight Dreary, While Lynn Allen Pondered, Weak and Weary, Over Many a Quaint and Curious Forgotten Post, s/he wrote: --------------------------------------------------------------
>Okay, think of it this way. The only screening they can do for >testicular cancer (not as common as breast cancer, but it happens) is >to mash one testicle between hard, cold plates until it's as flat as it >can go without actually causing you to scream.
Hmmm. I wasn't aware that breasts were that senstive. Woman don't seem to object when they're manhandled during ...ummm...other activities.
As for testicles, think what would happen if you did the same thing to, say, a tulip bulb, or a grape. They don't spring back from that kind of smooshing.
John P - with shivers running up and down his spine.
> Okay, think of it this way. The only screening they can do for testicular > cancer (not as common as breast cancer, but it happens) is to mash one > testicle between hard, cold plates until it's as flat as it can go without > actually causing you to scream. Then hold your breath while the technician > goes behind the barrier and flips the switch. The relief when the plates > are released is exquisite.
> Oh, then we have to do the other one.
Exactly. I find mammograms extremely painful (as above) but I don't want to die of cancer if I can possibly prevent it. I have one every two years. It doesn't take long and it's free for people over 40 here. Fran
> As for testicles, think what would happen if you did the same thing > to, say, a tulip bulb, or a grape. They don't spring back from that > kind of smooshing.
> John P - with shivers running up and down his spine.
On 2008-05-20 12:47:31 -0700, "Jr@Ease" <do.not.send.s...@this.address> said:
>> Okay, think of it this way. The only screening they can do for >> testicular cancer (not as common as breast cancer, but it happens) is >> to mash one testicle between hard, cold plates until it's as flat as it >> can go without actually causing you to scream.
> Hmmm. I wasn't aware that breasts were that senstive. Woman don't > seem to object when they're manhandled during ...ummm...other > activities.
Breasts vary in sensitivity among different women, and they vary in the same woman with time of month. I know some people have said "it isn't that bad" and I believe it, for them. For me, it hurts a lot. Your grape analogy isn't far off, sometimes I wonder if my nipple is going to shoot off across the room.
And I've never had someone try to reduce my breast to a thin film during "other activities." I would suspect that if someone had tried, he and I would have Had Words. Remember, the idea with a mammogram is to get the clearest picture, and that means the least possible cross-section. They don't just massage or compress the breast a LITTLE, they mash that sucker until it's less than an inch thick over the entire thing, right up to the chest wall. When you're already contemplating a 48-long bra, you wonder if it's going to reach your knees when they release you.
> As for testicles, think what would happen if you did the same thing > to, say, a tulip bulb, or a grape. They don't spring back from that > kind of smooshing.
> John P - with shivers running up and down his spine.
And relax that scrotum while you're at it! ;) I know that you couldn't mash a testicle the way they do breasts. But if the only test was to smoosh them just up to the point of permanent damage, and that was the only way to detect a deadly cancer, ask yourself how often you'd be willing to suffer that, and how easy it would be to procrastinate.
Mike Burke wrote: > On Mon, 19 May 2008 10:43:47 -0700 (PDT), Mary <mrfeath...@aol.com> > wrote:
>> Good points, all of them. But the thing that jumps out at me is that >> annual screening for breast cancer is the exception - is that true in >> Australia? I get a mammogram every year. I think that's the norm >> here.
>> Isn't it?
> Here, it's up to the individual I think. Jan has had one mammogram in > her entire life and wild horses couldn't drag her back for another > one. She'll be a lot more amenable to annual checks when this > recently announced new, less brutal technology becomes general.
> I've been a great believer in genetic influence because according to > the epidemiological fascists, as a very heavy smoker, a long-time > binge drinking, red meat-eating hedonist exposed to just about every > carcinogen in existence - and those in industrial quantities too - I > ought to have died long since from every known cancer and other > medical condition allegedly caused by doing what they don't like.
> As of this instant I'm still here and if by chance I'm not here > tomorrow, tell 'em I died happy and that I was happy to die.
> Mique
The official Breast Screen program in Australia pays for women between the ages of 50-69 to have a mammogram every 2 years.
Women outside these age groups can get a screening mammogram at private radiology clinics but will pay full price. Women with symptoms, eg a lump, or women at high risk of breast cancer(previous breast cancer of first degree relative with breast cancer)can get a mammogram which is subsidised by Medicare (usually doesn't cover the whole cost) on a doctor's referral.
On Mon, 19 May 2008 10:43:47 -0700, Mary wrote: > On May 19, 11:20 am, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote:
>> Food for thought.
> Good points, all of them. But the thing that jumps out at me is that > annual screening for breast cancer is the exception - is that true in > Australia? I get a mammogram every year. I think that's the norm > here.
> Isn't it?
> Mary
I'm low risk and I get one every year (since I turned 40). Maybe he's talking about younger women?
On Tue, 20 May 2008 02:20:20 +1000, Mike Burke wrote: > Needless to say, he has strong views on why people need to know their > full family details. The arguments apply just as much to anonymous > sperm donorship as to anything else.
Absolutely. But rulings like in John's case, that disclosure need not lead to financial obligation, makes it easier to get disclosure.
Of course, when we look at the data on how many putative fathers aren't the genetic fathers of their offspring, we might wonder how much trust to put in geneological information.... -- Cathy F
On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:15:30 -0400, Jr@Ease wrote: > John P - sympathetic but perplexed.
I think the complaints about the discomfort are often a cover for unconscious feelings of fear. Searching your breasts for signs of incipient cancer is scary as hell, and denial feels so good....
