COMMENTS: 41
Why the New Breast Cancer Guidelines Are Racist
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.
- An estimated 19,540 Black women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year, and more than 6,000 will die.
- Black women are 53 percent more likely than white women to be diagnosed at a later stage in the disease, and about 26 percent are less likely to receive radiation after breast-conserving surgery.
- Black women are more than twice as likely to receive no surgery at all and 39 percent more likely to die from breast cancer.
Some might think the word racist is overused and too harsh for the new breast cancer guidelines, issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The fact is, though, the new rules that call for raising the recommended age for women to begin getting mammograms from 40 to 50 ignore the thousands of Black women who die from the disease each year. Black women, in fact, are typically diagnosed with cancer at a younger age than white women, and at a more advanced stage of the disease. The appropriate protocol for women of color would be to receive mammograms earlier not later.
When you entirely dismiss a segment of the population, and that population happens to be a racial minority — one that is at a greater risk of dying from breast cancer than any other population — what do you call it? It might not be overt racism, but these new guidelines are the very definition of institutionalized racial discrimination.
Here are some facts to consider, courtesy of Sisters Network, the Black Women's Health Imperative and the American Cancer Society:
And the worst of it is the government appears to be making the change in order to appease or shore up the bottom line of the insurance industry.
The new guidelines
As we know, Black women are often diagnosed at an earlier age, but in a more advanced stage of breast cancer. Just as the federal agency announced it would make the change, many health education advocates for racial minorities were beginning to campaign to lower the age from 40 to 35.
Health educators have said one of their biggest obstacles in educating Black women about breast cancer is that much of the existing prevention information is not inclusive enough of women of color — something that isn't likely to change with the new guidelines.
The move will be save a lot of money for the insurance industry, but those savings come at a huge cost for women in general, and especially women of color. These new recommendations will undoubtedly affect insurance coverage, and women under 50 will likely have to pay out of pocket for breast cancer exams, which will, of course, play a part in determining how many have them.
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lefty010 on Nov 23, 2009 1:10 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is worth the read from "Information Liberation". I understand that it's not msm but it offers over 25 sources that claim that mammography may cause cancer.
http://informationliberation.com/?id=28007
Here's one stat from the article:
------
The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms.
-------
If this is the case then mammography may not be the appropriate way to detect breast cancer for anyone but even more so for Black women whom this article states are diagnosed and die from breast cancer at younger ages.
I would also question why it is that mammography is still used to treat mostly female problem when there might be even an inkling of a chance that the testing procedure could in fact be causing cancer.
So along with the idea that the procedure may be racist is it not also sexist? I don't hear about men smashing their penis' and testicles between to pieces of hard plastic and shooting the area with radiation to detect testicular or prostate cancer.
And furthermore, WHY are women of color getting breast cancer so early? What is going on in their environment that is causing the cancer so early? Why is the focus not placed on WHAT is causing the breast cancer rather than the hideous way black women are treated (or not treated) once they already have breast cancer. That is where I see institutionalized racism playing the biggest part in the marginalization of Black women and Black people in general.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ah typos...gotta love 'em
Posted by: lefty010
» RE: What if mammograms cause cancer?
Posted by: Iskander07
» RE: What if mammograms cause cancer?
Posted by: lefty010
» mamograms have give off as much radiation as a dental x ray
Posted by: Ayla87
» YES!
Posted by: lefty010
» You seem unable to make complex balancing decisions involving risk-benefit ratios...
Posted by: mjabele
» And you seem to be unable to understand what it is to hear...
Posted by: lefty010
» Your view that one has to be a woman in order to be "able to understand" what's at stake...
Posted by: mjabele
» Your callousness leads me to that conclusion.
Posted by: lefty010
» No, your preconceptions led you to that conclusion.
Posted by: mjabele
» Mixing apples and oranges.
Posted by: lefty010
» Lots of verbiage to explain why mammography SHOULD increase mortality - yet reality trumps theory...
Posted by: mjabele
» In other words...
Posted by: mjabele
» And to this...
Posted by: lefty010
» Ooooh, I think you started off with the "arrogant" bit...
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 23, 2009 3:24 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Even if the test may CAUSE the disease?
Posted by: lefty010
» If the test actually detects disease at a curable stage more often than it causes it...
Posted by: mjabele
» I don't know who you're replying to...
Posted by: lefty010
» The previous reply is directed to someone else, then, who didn't want to address real data.
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: The previous reply is directed to someone else, then, who didn't want to address real data.
Posted by: lefty010
» No, it's NOT from the ACS - it's from a guy who's twisting what the ACS just said to put forward...
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: heid on Nov 24, 2009 1:48 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, mammograms are not actually saving lives - at least, not in the way they're used. Yes, some lives are saved, but others are lost, and many many others suffer from unneeded treatment. They carry risks, one of which is that they cause the disease itself. Another is that they may catch the disease at an early stage when the body might naturally cure it, while treating it may be harmful.
The fact is that there is absolutely nothing to demonstrate that early detection equates to greater survival. Here's an article that can explain: Cancer—Does Early Detection Really Mean Longer Life?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Actually, there's plenty of such research. You just don't agree with its conclusions.
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 24, 2009 5:13 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet another reason to keep Obama, his cronies, and his Congresscritters out of our health decisions.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iskander07 on Nov 24, 2009 6:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an inherent problem with all screening programs when applied to a population, and why they oftentimes don't work very well. Screening tests are used not because they're particularly accurate or definitive, they're used because they're cheap and easy. Mammograms are cheap and easy. They definitely have a use - they're minimally invasive and, well, cheap and easy. Their utility is harmed by overuse and that's what these guidelines are supposed to address. If 98 of 100 positives are false for a population group then that population group needs to be excluded from testing.
Unfortunately prevention is being touted as the same as a cure, and thus the mammogram and the PSA test have been overplayed. Critics of both government run healthcare and of insurance companies can both seize upon this non-issue. In the insurance company's case it's obviously malice - they're too cheap to screen because it would uncover an extremely expensive illness and, after all, it's cheaper for you to die of it before it's discovered. Critics of government run healthcare have already been pointing this out as an example of the inevitable "rationing" of care on the part of the government.
All this being said the guidelines are meant to apply to populations, not to individuals. They say that any random person in a population group is exponentially less likely to benefit from screening than those who are 50 or more Individuals will vary from the population which is why it is critical for patients to have a good working relationship with their doctors, mammograms can be entirely appropriate for someone in their 30s or 40s who have a family history of breast cancer, but the number of people who would benefit are very few in those groups.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bigbrother on Nov 24, 2009 9:14 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems more like the new guidelines are sexist - could this be the beginning of Obama's dreaded death panels!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JSquercia on Nov 24, 2009 10:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is NO Obama care and the public option has not yet been defined much less passed . Do these people understand that the for PROFIT Insurance company's are CERTAINLY going to jump on THIS with BOTH FEET .Doctors will have to fight for screenings . It will be your Insurance company that denies you coverage . In many Instances you have little to NO choice in picking your Insurance company as it is provided by your employer. Incidentally as it now stands THIS lucrative market will be unavailable whatever Public Option is finally adopted
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SalB on Nov 24, 2009 11:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CJC on Nov 24, 2009 12:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because more black women than white are poor and therefore less likely to ever get mammograms efforts should be made to expand screening to more women. More women getting screened would have a greater impact on early detection and postponement of death than screening those already in the system more often.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 24, 2009 3:53 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Black women do not produce the necessary Vitamin D to help prevent the disease because they don't get the sunshine.
Cancer appears usually in the upper outer quadrant--right where pit poisons called deodorants and antiperspirants are applied. the chemicals and facilitate cancer, the anti- perspirants prevent the pits from doing their detox thing with sweat.
If memory serves, black women also face thyroid issues which can promote cancer.
And, lets not forget the obesity issue which is often linked...the 'Butt Sisters' are alive and well and spreading at the hips, stomach and thighs because they eat more garbage than a trash compacter.
Ladies, that damned machine doesn't do anything for your figure or your health... just keeping your Vitamin D levels to the high side and eating right will do much more for you...Its a question of what you want...'Health', or 'health care.'
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harpy on Nov 24, 2009 5:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jparsons on Nov 24, 2009 11:57 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mammograms?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Thanks for the link
Posted by: lefty010
» Actually, they've done the precise opposite - here's the ACS spokesman on 11/19/09...
Posted by: mjabele
» Next time check your primary source...
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lara1967 on Nov 25, 2009 12:33 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone knows the health of many african Americans aren't always healthly.Their family line has many different dieases and this is caused by genetics. Or the food they eat and the products the used to make themselves beautiful. Ladies those fake nails from the nail salon the chemicals causes CANCER.
12 toxic beauty product ingredients are just a few linked to breast cancer and other forms of cancer, so get to know them and always read the labels on beauty products before you purchase them!
http://dkmomm yspot.com/12-toxic-beauty-product-ingredients-linked -to-breast-other-cancers/
So, since this is the case and many women loves to put cancer causeing ingredients on their face and body, the only ones to blame is themselves.
Beauty To Die For
by Leigh Erin Connealy
http://www.healthsta tus.com/articles/Beauty_To_Die_For.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on Nov 26, 2009 3:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What would any rational person expect from an industry that did medical testing on slaves against their will? What now all of a sudden those statiticians should include people they never count? What frigging sense does that make? Blacks are invisible in the employment, health, housing, and education stats. We only become visible when crime stats are released. And of course the mental midget trolls who reside here will take away from that those stats are the only valid ones, nothing racialized in that thinking right?
I would like to suggest a name change for our union, Titanic sounds fitting to me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: parça kontör on Nov 30, 2009 5:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lefty010 on Nov 23, 2009 1:10 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is worth the read from "Information Liberation". I understand that it's not msm but it offers over 25 sources that claim that mammography may cause cancer.
http://informationliberation.com/?id=28007
Here's one stat from the article:
------
The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms.
-------
If this is the case then mammography may not be the appropriate way to detect breast cancer for anyone but even more so for Black women whom this article states are diagnosed and die from breast cancer at younger ages.
I would also question why it is that mammography is still used to treat mostly female problem when there might be even an inkling of a chance that the testing procedure could in fact be causing cancer.
So along with the idea that the procedure may be racist is it not also sexist? I don't hear about men smashing their penis' and testicles between to pieces of hard plastic and shooting the area with radiation to detect testicular or prostate cancer.
And furthermore, WHY are women of color getting breast cancer so early? What is going on in their environment that is causing the cancer so early? Why is the focus not placed on WHAT is causing the breast cancer rather than the hideous way black women are treated (or not treated) once they already have breast cancer. That is where I see institutionalized racism playing the biggest part in the marginalization of Black women and Black people in general.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ah typos...gotta love 'em
Posted by: lefty010
» RE: What if mammograms cause cancer?
Posted by: Iskander07
» RE: What if mammograms cause cancer?
Posted by: lefty010
» mamograms have give off as much radiation as a dental x ray
Posted by: Ayla87
» YES!
Posted by: lefty010
» You seem unable to make complex balancing decisions involving risk-benefit ratios...
Posted by: mjabele
» And you seem to be unable to understand what it is to hear...
Posted by: lefty010
» Your view that one has to be a woman in order to be "able to understand" what's at stake...
Posted by: mjabele
» Your callousness leads me to that conclusion.
Posted by: lefty010
» No, your preconceptions led you to that conclusion.
Posted by: mjabele
» Mixing apples and oranges.
Posted by: lefty010
» Lots of verbiage to explain why mammography SHOULD increase mortality - yet reality trumps theory...
Posted by: mjabele
» In other words...
Posted by: mjabele
» And to this...
Posted by: lefty010
» Ooooh, I think you started off with the "arrogant" bit...
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 23, 2009 3:24 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Even if the test may CAUSE the disease?
Posted by: lefty010
» If the test actually detects disease at a curable stage more often than it causes it...
Posted by: mjabele
» I don't know who you're replying to...
Posted by: lefty010
» The previous reply is directed to someone else, then, who didn't want to address real data.
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: The previous reply is directed to someone else, then, who didn't want to address real data.
Posted by: lefty010
» No, it's NOT from the ACS - it's from a guy who's twisting what the ACS just said to put forward...
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: heid on Nov 24, 2009 1:48 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, mammograms are not actually saving lives - at least, not in the way they're used. Yes, some lives are saved, but others are lost, and many many others suffer from unneeded treatment. They carry risks, one of which is that they cause the disease itself. Another is that they may catch the disease at an early stage when the body might naturally cure it, while treating it may be harmful.
The fact is that there is absolutely nothing to demonstrate that early detection equates to greater survival. Here's an article that can explain: Cancer—Does Early Detection Really Mean Longer Life?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Actually, there's plenty of such research. You just don't agree with its conclusions.
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 24, 2009 5:13 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet another reason to keep Obama, his cronies, and his Congresscritters out of our health decisions.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iskander07 on Nov 24, 2009 6:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an inherent problem with all screening programs when applied to a population, and why they oftentimes don't work very well. Screening tests are used not because they're particularly accurate or definitive, they're used because they're cheap and easy. Mammograms are cheap and easy. They definitely have a use - they're minimally invasive and, well, cheap and easy. Their utility is harmed by overuse and that's what these guidelines are supposed to address. If 98 of 100 positives are false for a population group then that population group needs to be excluded from testing.
Unfortunately prevention is being touted as the same as a cure, and thus the mammogram and the PSA test have been overplayed. Critics of both government run healthcare and of insurance companies can both seize upon this non-issue. In the insurance company's case it's obviously malice - they're too cheap to screen because it would uncover an extremely expensive illness and, after all, it's cheaper for you to die of it before it's discovered. Critics of government run healthcare have already been pointing this out as an example of the inevitable "rationing" of care on the part of the government.
All this being said the guidelines are meant to apply to populations, not to individuals. They say that any random person in a population group is exponentially less likely to benefit from screening than those who are 50 or more Individuals will vary from the population which is why it is critical for patients to have a good working relationship with their doctors, mammograms can be entirely appropriate for someone in their 30s or 40s who have a family history of breast cancer, but the number of people who would benefit are very few in those groups.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bigbrother on Nov 24, 2009 9:14 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems more like the new guidelines are sexist - could this be the beginning of Obama's dreaded death panels!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JSquercia on Nov 24, 2009 10:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is NO Obama care and the public option has not yet been defined much less passed . Do these people understand that the for PROFIT Insurance company's are CERTAINLY going to jump on THIS with BOTH FEET .Doctors will have to fight for screenings . It will be your Insurance company that denies you coverage . In many Instances you have little to NO choice in picking your Insurance company as it is provided by your employer. Incidentally as it now stands THIS lucrative market will be unavailable whatever Public Option is finally adopted
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SalB on Nov 24, 2009 11:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CJC on Nov 24, 2009 12:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because more black women than white are poor and therefore less likely to ever get mammograms efforts should be made to expand screening to more women. More women getting screened would have a greater impact on early detection and postponement of death than screening those already in the system more often.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 24, 2009 3:53 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Black women do not produce the necessary Vitamin D to help prevent the disease because they don't get the sunshine.
Cancer appears usually in the upper outer quadrant--right where pit poisons called deodorants and antiperspirants are applied. the chemicals and facilitate cancer, the anti- perspirants prevent the pits from doing their detox thing with sweat.
If memory serves, black women also face thyroid issues which can promote cancer.
And, lets not forget the obesity issue which is often linked...the 'Butt Sisters' are alive and well and spreading at the hips, stomach and thighs because they eat more garbage than a trash compacter.
Ladies, that damned machine doesn't do anything for your figure or your health... just keeping your Vitamin D levels to the high side and eating right will do much more for you...Its a question of what you want...'Health', or 'health care.'
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harpy on Nov 24, 2009 5:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jparsons on Nov 24, 2009 11:57 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mammograms?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Thanks for the link
Posted by: lefty010
» Actually, they've done the precise opposite - here's the ACS spokesman on 11/19/09...
Posted by: mjabele
» Next time check your primary source...
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lara1967 on Nov 25, 2009 12:33 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone knows the health of many african Americans aren't always healthly.Their family line has many different dieases and this is caused by genetics. Or the food they eat and the products the used to make themselves beautiful. Ladies those fake nails from the nail salon the chemicals causes CANCER.
12 toxic beauty product ingredients are just a few linked to breast cancer and other forms of cancer, so get to know them and always read the labels on beauty products before you purchase them!
http://dkmomm yspot.com/12-toxic-beauty-product-ingredients-linked -to-breast-other-cancers/
So, since this is the case and many women loves to put cancer causeing ingredients on their face and body, the only ones to blame is themselves.
Beauty To Die For
by Leigh Erin Connealy
http://www.healthsta tus.com/articles/Beauty_To_Die_For.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on Nov 26, 2009 3:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What would any rational person expect from an industry that did medical testing on slaves against their will? What now all of a sudden those statiticians should include people they never count? What frigging sense does that make? Blacks are invisible in the employment, health, housing, and education stats. We only become visible when crime stats are released. And of course the mental midget trolls who reside here will take away from that those stats are the only valid ones, nothing racialized in that thinking right?
I would like to suggest a name change for our union, Titanic sounds fitting to me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: parça kontör on Nov 30, 2009 5:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Updated: Catholic Bishops Embrace Anti-Abortion Terrorizers Missy Smith and Randall Terry
10 Defining Feminist Moments of 2009
Going Undercover in the Crazy, Tragic World of Christian Gay-Conversion Therapy




