Stop giving men a bum steer on prostate cancer

marley says:

08:31am | 06/09/11

I read a report a while ago, written in the Canadian context but I suspect applicable here as well, which said that funding for both breast and prostate cancer research and screening is adequate, but that funding for lung, colorectal, stomach and pancreatic cancer is way below the levels needed.  And I’m reasonably sure that the five year survival rates for all four of these is much lower than those for either breast or prostate cancer.

I don’t know quite how we ‘level the playing field” when so much cancer funding comes from cause-specific donations.

Shane* says:

09:09am | 06/09/11

@Erick and Marley

http://www.forgottencancers.com.au/

mike j says:

10:47am | 06/09/11

marley: “I don’t know quite how we ‘level the playing field” when so much cancer funding comes from cause-specific donations.”

We could teach our women to think about somebody other than themselves.

JS says:

12:18pm | 06/09/11

@Mike J - “We could teach our women to think about somebody other than themselves.”

or even better we could teach our men to look after themselves and stop expecting women to do everything for them.

mike j says:

01:12pm | 06/09/11

JS… are you, like, eighty?

All my generation expects from women is disappointment, unfounded entitlement, and credit card debt.

In the context of charity work, there are many, many men who do great work for women’s charities. By contrast, there are many, many women who do great work for women’s charities.

Not only are women completely self-absorbed, they care so little about us that they don’t even make an effort to hide it.

Kika says:

02:04pm | 06/09/11

Ha! Gosh Erick you’ve got an agenda. So now you want to see women dying because they live longer anyway?  Listen, if you want men’s cancers to get more attention MAKE attention! That’s how the breast cancer awareness thing got to be so huge. Women are able to talk about illnesses and emotional things so they have created the noise they’ve got. Men rarely go to doctors so by the time they go it’s more likely the cancers are more advanced than if they went when the first had symptoms.

A good friend of my mum had her dad suffer from 2 years of severe prostate cancer symptoms before going to the doctor!

But what about bowel cancer? That kills more than breast or prostate and from BOTH sexes.

Kyra says:

02:23pm | 06/09/11

Mike J, are you like 80? I don’t expect anyone to pay for my stuff but me. I donated money last year when a friend participated in Movember and I’m often concerned about people other than me (one of the reasons I work in Mental Health)

I care very much about the men in my life, especially my father and brother (I’m single at the moment). My maternal grandfather died of cancer. It sounds like you have had a few bad experiences and have let that colour your view of the entire female population.

Maybe if what you expect is disappointment it’s what you get. It’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

JS says:

02:27pm | 06/09/11

@ Mike J - so whats your point?

why drag some lame whine about women into an article about prostate cancer?

fairsfair says:

02:53pm | 06/09/11

“So now you want to see women dying because they live longer anyway?”

What a stupid assertion to make, but I don’t think anyone needs to tell you that.

mike j says:

03:40pm | 06/09/11

Kyra, I’ve never denied that there are exceptions to the rule. Unfortunately, there’s also the rule.

JS, I love how you think men’s perception of women as shallow, selfish, unsympathetic prostitutes is just a ‘lame whine’. And you’re demonstrating my point quite nicely, thanks.

JS says:

03:59pm | 06/09/11

@ mike j - “men’s perception of women as shallow, selfish, unsympathetic prostitutes”

lets get one thing straight, that is YOUR perception. Don’t go dragging the whole gender down into your sick little world.

you still have answered my question, i am assuming because you can’t…. why drag some lame whine about women into an article about prostate cancer?

marley says:

04:21pm | 06/09/11

Oh for gawd’s sake.  My point was that we tend to donate to or support charities which resonate with us, not necessarily the ones that need the money the most.  I donate to breast cancer because one of my relatives and one of my friends both had it (and the friend died of it).  I donate to the heart and stroke because my dad died of a stroke.  I donated to a Canadian prostate cancer group at one time because my grandfather died of prostate cancer.  But maybe I should have been donating all along not to any of these, but to stomach cancer or pancreatic cancer research because they’re the ones that need it more. 

The way charities are organized doesn’t ensure that donations go where they’re most needed and that’s a pity.  And it has nothing to do with male vs female issues.  Arghhh.

Erick says:

05:23pm | 06/09/11

@Kika - “So now you want to see women dying because they live longer anyway?”

No. Why are you lying about me?

acotrel says:

06:23pm | 06/09/11

When I was still working, there was a young fella of about 64, went for the check. When he came back he said to the rest of us ‘you know, you could get to like that’ !  One of the others said ‘you’re a sick man, Bob !’

mike j says:

06:23pm | 06/09/11

JS: My gender, and yours, reside in this ‘sick little world’, whether they realise it or not. And why would I answer such a stupid question? The onus isn’t on me to make illiterate simpletons understand what I’ve written.

marley: “My point was that we tend to donate to or support charities which resonate with us”

My point was that charities that tend to resonate with women are charities *for* women. This is confirmed by donation statistics, participation and awareness rates, and just by generally not walking through life with your head in a sack.

So your statement that ‘it has nothing to do with male vs female’ is not supported by the wealth of evidence available to you. Thoughts?

marley says:

06:51pm | 06/09/11

@MikeJ - well, maybe I just donate more than you do.  Or maybe I have more female friends. Or more older relatives. 

Or maybe I’m just tired of people turning serious illness and slow, painful death into a platform for their own agendas.  Be damned to the lot of you.

mike j says:

07:39pm | 06/09/11

Disappointing response, marley.

Fiona says:

09:35pm | 06/09/11

Shane, had a quick look just to confirm that brain cancer was one of them. That ones close to my heart (or head) and we’re starting to hear more and more of it. Jim stynes for one (although his tumors were secondary to melanoma). BTW daffodil day is a lovely way to contribute to the cancer foundation in a generic way.
I do wish people on this forum would stop trying to turn topics such as this into a gender debate. Grow up ppl. Stop trying to pick fights mike j.

Emma says:

10:54pm | 06/09/11

Hahahahahahahaha. Hilarious. Erick and MikeJ… Ohhhhhh dear…...

Elizabeth1 says:

01:15pm | 07/09/11

Things are changing.  Mens health is becoming a major issue in my field.  Eleven years ago a group of workers in my city established a mens health working party (instigated and chaired by a woman- some women do care about mens health) to do something to support mens health.  This group has grown and now has a variety of membership, (women are welcome but membership is now mostly men).  The group has been instrumental in the establishment of a dedicated mens health clinic provided by a male qualified Nurse Practitioner.  Funding to support the employment and training of this Mens Health Nurse Practitioner was organised through a Community Health Service.  The Mens Health Working Party has provided annual activities to support men health during Mens Health Week for over 10 years and is able to attract around $25,000pa for this cause. The model that is used for the major event was developed by a local woman over 15 years ago.  Federal Government and State Governments have established a range initiatives,  policy and provide funding to support mens health. Some examples: National Male Health Policy- May 2010the first for Australia. To accompany the release of the National Male Health Policy, a funding commitment of $16.7 million was made to improve male health through a number of initiatives:
$6 million over three years to promote the role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander fathers and partners, grandfathers and uncles,
$6.9 million over four years for Australia’s first national longitudinal study on male health.
$3 million over four years to support Men’s Sheds in Australia.
$400,000 over four years for regular statistical bulletins on male health.
$350,000 over four years for the development of a range of health promotion materials for males.
Other sites of interest.
http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/topics/Men_s_Health
http://www.menshealthservices.com.au/
http://www.mensline.org.au/home.aspx
http://www.man.org.au/

mike j says:

06:19pm | 07/09/11

We’re not a couple, Emma. If that’s what’s turning you on.

Elizabeth1: “Mens health is becoming a major issue in my field.”

Breaking news: half the population have health!

I… am I the only one who appreciates how ridiculous that statement is? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

$16.7 million is absolutely laughable in public health terms. Over four years (minus the $6 million for aborigines to which most of us don’t have access), it’s only $2.7 million per year. Say eleven million men in Australia, this ‘commitment’ averages out to a mind-blowing 24 cents per man each year.

Twenty. Four. Cents.

The Australian Government plans to spend $4.8 billion on international development assistance in 2011-2012.

But thanks for the update. Clearly, my concerns are groundless.

Elizabeth1 says:

08:46pm | 07/09/11

Mikej - I wont argue that this has been slow in coming. But I will remind you that this is direct funding to men for a National Mens Health strategy.  You may scoff but this is a significant achievement.  Prevention & health promotion is a relatively new field (with the exception of immunizations) and it is difficult to attract money away from accute services to health promotion services within the confines of a finite number of dollars.  Funding bodies are recognising the benefit s of prevention but demand for accute services is also growing, making it very difficult.  To put it in context for you:  total public health expenditure for communcable diseases - 13.8 million. That means it is less than your Twenty. Four. Cents (I am very impressed if that figure is correct-good maths). Total public health expenditure for prevention of hazardous alcohol and drug use 50.9 million.  Football injuries just under 44 million. Cancer 5% of the health budget.
Mental Health allocated 343.8 million.  Men use all of these services and some in much greater numbers than women.

Elizabeth1 says:

10:22pm | 07/09/11

Mikej -  I notice you made no comment that it was women who were the instigators for a working party to improve mens health.  The reason this working party was established was concern about the gap in life expectancy between males and females. In the past it was assumed that current health services catered to mens needs. But that was wrong. Men do not attend health services until after their health and wellbeing has been seriously affected. Gender does have an impact on health behaviors and outcomes. Men have their own perceptions and require the same opportunities as females have had with establishing womens health services.  But it requires men to be involved.  They are the only ones who know what they need in terms of health services and how those services should be delivered.  The services least utilized by men are preventive health services, such as lifestyle modification or cancer screening. Men are more likely to die of alcohol abuse, heart disease, cancers or to commit suicide. All preventable.
As an endnote over the past 20 years life expectancy has improved by 5.8 years for males and 4.3 years for females in Australia.  The aim of health workers in Australia (mostly female) is to ensure the gap between males and females in Australia continues to close.

mike j says:

06:04pm | 08/09/11

Hi Elizabeth1. It’s a significant achievement only in context of the fact that men’s health has previously been woefully under-addressed. And it’s difficult to attract money away from acute services because women and the elderly scream blue murder if you take anything away from them.

I’m not here to dicker over figures, but your distinction about men’s health being mostly preventative is absurd. Pregnancy is preventable: if women stopped getting pregnant, we could save billions. The health system exists to make people better, not to moralise about why they got ill in the first place.

As for your isolated example of women instituting health-care reform for men, I didn’t comment because it doesn’t invalidate anything I’ve said. It’s certainly not representative.

The aim of health workers in Australia (mostly female) is to get a pay cheque. Imputing motive is pure speculation, however much it suits your argument.

If you agree that men’s health is a concern, why are you trying to misrepresent how great it is? All you’re doing is perpetuating the status quo. Whose side are you on?

Ellizabeth1 says:

08:55pm | 08/09/11

Mikej - I think like to dicker over a number of things.  Meh- I am enjoying myself so you go for it.  You are making me work to support my argument, which is a good thing,  who knows it might prevent alzheimers and prevention is always better than cure.
Ok - I agree a lot more needs to be done in terms of mens health in promoting health and preventing illness but I have already been over that. I would also agree that a lot more needs to be done across the whole population n terms of prevention.  Men do however have the same access, if not more service usage, at the accute service end.  Its not just women and the elderly who object to money being redirected, the whole community scream. 
This is the current situation that our community are still not satisfied with always demanding more hospital beds, PBS drugs and machines be they radiology, MRIs etc.
Federal Budget . One trillion dollars annually
. Health Budget . 10% of Federal Budget ($100 Billion)
. % of Health Budget spent on chronic conditions . 70% ($70 Billion)
. % of chronic conditions caused by lifestyle/behaviour . 70% ($50 Billion)
. % of health care budget spent on prevention . 1.8%
Preventing ill health is not moralizing it is fact. and it works on a number of levels. Actually I am confused about your accusation of no one caring about mens health if you yourself believe that prevention of ill health is nonsense.  As I have highlighted men already access all other health dollars (They access drug and alcohol at twice the rate of females, cancer treatments at higher levels).  The only population group that exceeds mens rates of accute services expenditure would be older people and half of them are men.  Any improvement in monetary expenditure for men would have to occur at the prevention end of the health continuum.  Most Australians do not die of old age, they die of preventable conditions that could have been avoided if certain lifestyle factors were adapted or the illness had been picked up early enough. One of the reasons lung cancer has low survival rates is that it is not picked up until too late. Most types would be quite treatable if picked up early before they spread.  In terms of lifestyle, if you were to do 30 minutes of moderate exercise per day you would cut your risk of dying from all cancers by 50%.  Screening is another example of prevention.  Compared to women, men visit the doctor less often, have shorter consultations and tend to see their GP later in the course of their illness.  The example of women being interested in supporting mens health is not isolated nor is it indicative of just happening because of pay checks. Health workers have been advocating for mens health for a long time, well over a decade.  Men moving into the poorly paid health industry has provided the insider knowledge to further this. As I have already mentioned women knew the health system didnt always suit them, but the health field was slow to realize it doesnt suit men either. It was not a conspiracy in fact it was a surprise - begs the question - who does the health system suit dont you think?  In terms of our pay being the motivator,, we apply for targetted funding.  We write our own submissions for funding grants. Mens health has gained momentum as funding bodies acknowledge the benefits and this had made it easier but the movement was started a long time ago - mostly driven by women. Mikej women are the same species as you,  humans who have have human realationships with their fathers, mothers, brothers,sisters and sons, We are not aliens with no ties.

mike j says:

09:21pm | 09/09/11

Painting me as a dickerer, Elizabeth1? That’s not very nice of you.

“Men do however have the same access”

Equal opportunity is not substantive equality. Ask feminists. That’s why half the population -even the portion that has never known anything but gender equality- gets preferential treatment. It’s called ‘positive discrimination’. Saying that men have the same access to health is like saying Aborigines have the same access to opportunities as everyone else, so that makes it okay that they live 20+ years less than everyone else.

These are the facts:
* There is a substantive inequality in health care funding between men and women
* There is a substantive inequality in life expectancy between men and women
* Both of these in the context of historical inequality
* All form of media routinely trivialise men, men’s issues, and men’s health
* There is social inequality in the way were preference women with cushier are less dangerous social roles, and we are expected (by, for example YOU, above) to applaud them for being nurses and childcare workers, when men are out there drilling oil wells, working on fishing trawlers and in mines, and fighting wars in foreign countries.

You want to say it’s men’s fault for not looking after their health?

Where there’s substantive inequality, shouldn’t positive discrimination take place to correct it? At least, that’s what feminism has been shoving down my throat my whole life. It’s ‘do what I say and not what I do’ with you people, isn’t it?

Maybe women should take a look around them at all the things they take for granted every day that are invented, built, maintained, and protected by men. Maybe the next time they take a two-hour lunch for a breast cancer fund raiser at work while men are inside working, they might reflect on how ultimately selfish they are. Donation statistics, again, speak for themselves.

We’re men. We don’t care about us. We care about you. We’re evolutionarily hardwired to disregard our own health, sometimes our lives, to defend our tribe and our women. What’s manly about hypochondria? If men don’t fit well into a health system designed to accommodate women, let’s CHANGE IT.

I love women, but I suspect not so much as they love themselves. I appreciate your good intentions, Elizabeth1, but I still think you’re part of the problem.

Elizabeth1 says:

10:55am | 10/09/11

Well Mikej I am sorry you see me as part of the problem.  It certainly is not my intention to be a barrier to a healthy and happy life for men.  I started this conversation identifying that things are changing. I agree that there is an inequality in funding and I have however attempted to put this inequality into historical context as well as the current barriers.  My whole discussion has been about change.  If I had a magic wand I would be waving it.  I still refute your accusation that all women are selfish and have no interest in men’s health.  It’s a judgmental and offensive stance in my opinion.  I also don’t like being lumped in with 50% of the population, I don’t know most of them, most likely would dislike most of them and the only commonality I am likely to have with most of them is my reproductive parts.
Your second last paragraph is something I have never thought of – the issue of men not seeking help has never been explained properly and I think that’s the best explanation I have ever seen.  None of the men working in Men’s Health have identified this (certainly haven’t articulated it), as far as I know.  Mens Health is not my field, but I am pretty sure they are using the same method that the women’s health movement used.  It was an empowering the individual model and it worked for women but clearly won’t work for men.  From what you have highlighted, in order for that style to work it, would need a radical psychological change in men away from their own biological instincts. Not something I would wish to see or believe is possible.  Ok so from that I now understand why you are tempted to accuse women of being selfish and of not taking an interest in men’s health issues.  I still think you are wrong to give such a broad brush.  20,000 women ran in the UK to raise money for prostrate cancer.    In Australia the second highest fund raiser for the City Surf fun run was a woman.  Yes some woman are selfish but not all.  I am sure most, like me, have never thought about how unlikely men are to think about themselves in this matter.  We all tend to see things through our own special lenses.
Your examples of woman’s work roles is interesting.  You have chosen industries where women have been activity excluded - by male management.  But somehow you blame women.  I am not sure how that was relevant to our topic either.  Perhaps because of the mention of male health workers – that was to show that change should occur much quicker now that the unique experience of men will be represented.
I have already gone to great length to explain the structural barriers for the Mens Health Movement.  You have provided and excellent example of a social barrier - in that men are unlikely to agitate on their own behalf (that is not a criticism just noting a fact).  The other big barrier - Political will – that requires top level leadership but most importantly the will of the electorate.  It requires a shift away from expenditures for ill health and a solid resource backed belief in the opportunity and benefits of promoting health and prevention.  You yourself remain skeptical and insist on seeing this a moralizing.  Mike j I don’t think we are going to see eye to eye on this.  Thanks for the insight into men’s views on their health.  I don’t know what a dickerer is so I best take that back in case its offensive.

mike j says:

12:35pm | 10/09/11

“I still think you are wrong to give such a broad brush.”

I’m fond of hyperbole, and general discussions require generalisations.

“You have chosen industries where women have been activity excluded - by male management.”

With the exception of the military, that is manifestly untrue. Any women excluded by virtue of her gender would have had recourse to anti-discrimination laws, and the public funding available to make examples of such sexist ‘male management’.

Most women just don’t want to work in these industries. This is a fairly simple observation, and it doesn’t help your case to deny it.

“men are unlikely to agitate on their own behalf (that is not a criticism just noting a fact)”

I’m glad I’ve given you something to think on. I don’t have the solution to this, but the first step is to understand the problem.

You’re right, the big barrier to men’s health is political. But politicians reflect social will. They’d sell their own mothers for a vote, so they’d certainly change the health system if that’s what society deemed desirable. While society is content with the status quo, nothing will change.

The dickerer thing was a joke. Thanks for the chat, Elizabeth1.

Elizabeth1 says:

06:28pm | 11/09/11

Mike j - thank you it was fun and I think you may have given me a real gem.

mike j says:

03:24pm | 12/09/11

Any time, Elizabeth1. The pleasure was mine.

Castro says:

07:47am | 06/09/11

I don’t mean to be anal about this, but Carz you should examine youself carefully after inserting such crappy puns into your reply.

Carz says:

08:03am | 06/09/11

Castro, I wasn’t being deliberately punny. It just came out that way.

sam says:

08:28am | 06/09/11

Excuse me?!?! That is just about the most inflammatory and boneheaded remark I’ve ever read in the Punch comments. And that really is saying something.

_Maybe_you_should_go_get_some_funding_and_start_up_a_prostate_cancer_research_lab_if_its_so_goddamned_easy_

Direct says:

11:41am | 06/09/11

The other more sinister side is that it promotes a do nothing mindset. In the absence of a better screening technique, the PSA test should be encouraged. In the absence of better cancer treatment, prostate surgery should be promoted.

This do nothing mindset continues to push the idea that men are worthless in society and that if they feel a bit off, they should just suck it up, quit whining and get on with it rather than pursue possible life saving medical advice.

Fiona says:

09:40pm | 06/09/11

Good for you nick. I used to work in urology. There have been lots of advances since I was there. I wish there were more men willing to at least get themselves off to the GP regularly.

Kika says:

02:10pm | 06/09/11

Stop being a baby.  I bleed every month. You should have tried the carefree ones - they are good for leakage.

Outraged says:

03:44pm | 06/09/11

Wow Kika, shame on you!

Just because you bleed once a month, doesn’t give you the right to be a b!tch…

fairsfair says:

03:56pm | 06/09/11

You clearly have no idea what is involved in a needle biopsy of the prostate Kika.

Seriously, you are excelling yourself today. I always thought you were a bit alternate in your views, and I was down that that - no drama. Today, I just feel sorry for you.

fairsfair says:

01:24pm | 06/09/11

Nossy I am glad you keep fit and I hope I am able to maintain a similar lifestyle as I get older. Wise words.

My father was diagnosed in 2009 off the back of the PSA test alone. His neighbour had been diagnosed and he had to physically ask for the PSA test to be carried out.  Apparently their was no abnormality to be felt by hand (finger) and his GP even advised him to ignore the PSA level for the time being and “see what it did” even when it returned at like 14 or something or other. He insisted on seeing the specialist and following on from the core biopsy abnormal cells were detected on the outer edges of his prostate. Had he not insisted it would have metasticised and his first symptoms would have been from the secondary. So he was very lucky as had he not insisted he would have likely died from advanced liver/bowel whatever cancer in a relatively short period of time.

I think men fear the invasive nature of it all. Women are conditioned to their bodies doing weird things as so often things go wrong and are not right with our girl bits. Fixing that usually invoves getting yourself into very uncomfortable situations. But for some reason it is just accepted. It is just part of life to have a papsmear every two years and I wish prostate testing was looked at in a similar manner.

The current adverts with Ray Hadley et al don’t really seem to work. Being spoken at doesn’t really help (I’m going all Gruen Transfer on you now). I vividly remember the papsmear ad on TV from even when I was a kid and had no idea what they were. The one where it simply had all those women sharing excuses as to why they had not had it done. That was effective. I think the advertiment of men’s health issues needs to be looked at.

nossy says:

01:50pm | 06/09/11

@fairsfair a wonderful blog there FF and with some first hand experience with your Father as well so anyone can see this is a serious matter. Whilst we joke about the finger test it pales in comparison to actually having Prostate Cancer and being treated.The comedian Billy Connolly has gone on TV advising men to get their Prostate checked and he also does a great skit on this very serious matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv3oY5tpSb4

scumbag says:

03:22pm | 06/09/11

No finger up my wrect’em thanks, unless it’s mine, and that’s only as a last resort, if I’ve lost my keys.

fairsfair says:

04:53pm | 06/09/11

lol Scumbag, if only the odd set of keys was all they ever found up there….

I can think of a lot worse things than a doctor putting their finger up your bum. You are at your most vulnerable for sure and I wonder if that is the mental barrier that men face? WIthout being to graphic and offending anyone’s delicate senses - women never have the power in a sense that we are never fully in control of putting things inside of other things and because we don’t have that barrier to overcome we are accepting of the fact that invasive procedures are just part of it all.

Perhaps it is not only the fear of the results but also the act of “submitting” yourself to taking the test. Which I think I can kind of understand.

nossy says:

01:56pm | 06/09/11

@Terry - Terrence my lad you win nossys “Goose Of the Month” award fella! Honestly does your mummy know you are on her PC?  please ignore little Terrence everyone.  hahaha

marley says:

02:10pm | 06/09/11

I assume you don’t bother with antibiotics or seat belts in your car either.

Jacob says:

03:17pm | 06/09/11

I think you’re missing the entire point Kika. The point being made is that there is no reliable test for a prostate cancer. It simply doesn’t exist.

If PSA testing was used across the population, it would mean 48 men would get treated (unnecessarily and with severe consequences for a cancer that never would have done any tangible harm) for every life it saves.

It’s an emotive issue, and pro-PSA men get very very fired up about it because they don’t even want to consider for a moment the (very real) possibility that they were one of the 48.

Oh, and by the way, for the only proven cancer screening test that impacts both sexes (the slightly unpleasant FOB test for bowel cancer) the uptake is roughly 50/50 between men and women… So much for your “men are babies” theory

Elizabeth says:

02:56pm | 22/09/11

“Yes, some medical tests are awful and uncomfortable. But you do it because it’s best to be on the safe side. Pap smears are really unpleasant, but us women do it every 2 years because we know it’s for the best.”

I’d urge you to do your reading - you’ve been misled.
Two yearly testing just exposes you to risk for no additional benefit - makes it more likely you’ll end up being referred for a colposcopy and some sort of biopsy…not fun stuff. Our program has been out-of-step with the evidence for a very long time - it’s harmful.
I don’t have pap tests at all and that was the best decision for my health, my very low level of risk. I’d urge all women to toss out “information” provided by Papscreen or the Cancer Council and look at the facts. If you decide you want pap tests, consider a program that at least makes some attempt to protect you from the high risk of false positives and over-treatment.
Three or 5 yearly testing from age 30 to 50, 55 or 60 provides some protection, but a rare cancer and unreliable test is a bad combination for population screening and even that program will send 35%-55% of women at some stage for follow-up - almost all are false positives.
The HPV test could also be used to further reduce testing or even do away with it altogether for some women. Your GP is unlikely to give you any information on alternatives to the Aussie program as they get target payments for pap testing. A good and ethical doctor should be prepared to discuss the options with you…but the chances are higher if you’ve done your reading and demand your legal right to make an informed decision about pap testing. (and mammograms) It shocks me the information that is deliberately concealed, the omissions in the brochures, the patronizing scare campaigns and the total lack of respect for women and our rights and health. It’s all about protecting the program and its vested and political interests.
Blogcritics has a thread called, “Unnecessary pap smears” - over 6000 posts from women harmed by screening and from those concerned at the lack of ethical standards in our screening programs. These women are silenced or dismissed - the authorities will showcase the rare cases of women with cervical cancer, (and some are false negative cases - although that is rarely disclosed) yet never show us the HUGE number of women left worse off after false positives and over-treatment. All terribly dishonest and the really sad thing - not one Aussie doctor is prepared to speak up and challenge these programs - to hold them accountable and keep them ethical and respectful.
As it stands, you are FAR more likely to be harmed by our programs, because it is impossible to make an informed decision on the basis of the information that’s released to us.
Play it safe, protect your body and make informed decisions about screening. Women under 30 - be very careful with this program - look at the evidence from the UK, The Netherlands or Finland - they protect their young women from harm and exclude them from testing.

marley says:

07:12pm | 06/09/11

Thank god for some rationality on the issue.  It’s an important one, and all this nattering back and forth obscures the need to get tested if you’re in a high risk group, and to get a responsible evaluation of what the test results mean.