|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Thursday, October 24, 2002In agreeing to testify, the Chicago expert, Dr. Schmidt, did not exactly praise the mammograms. But he said he could have read most of them; more significantly, he said, they were not unusual for this type of clinic — no "Madison Avenue kind of practice, where you're trying to get the absolute perfect, perfect image." One judge asked, "You don't mean to imply if you have more money you'd get better films?" Dr. Schmidt answered, "Yes, I do." Why is that so surprising? Radiology equipment is like any other equipment. You get what you pay for. Yet, the state can’t seem to come to terms with this economic reality: In its closing arguments, the state deplored such a two-tier system; the minimum standards, officials argued, allow far too much variability in quality, depending on the patient's wealth, the clinic's assiduousness and the doctor's expertise. But the medical board ruled that the state had gone too far. "Simply put," the judges concluded, "petitioner may not prosecute a licensee for failing to perform above minimum standards." Looks like the state should change its standards. Of course, that would mean that they couldn’t get mammograms as cheaply as they want. The more tragic aspect of this case, however, is the women who have been led to believe that a mammogram is the final word on whether or not they have breast cancer. Mammograms have been hyped to such an extent that people believe they’re infallible. They interpret a negative mammogram to mean they don’t have cancer, even if there’s a large palpable mass sitting in their breast, as the woman highlighted in the article did. This just simply isn’t the case. Any breast mass should be evaluated, regardless of the mammography results. This is what comes of hyping a screening instrument of questionable benefit. All of those advocacy groups and politicians who are so quick to trumpet the value of mammography despite all the evidence of its limitations bear some responsibility for this. posted by Sydney on 10/24/2002 08:52:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
