I think it's a good idea, I mean how can it not be? Katrin
I agree that the EARLY Act is a good idea. That's why I've been working with the Tigerlily Foundation and others to get it passed. But believe it or not, some people within the breast cancer community have opposed this legislation. They think there is nothing that can be done about breast cancer in young women and that it doesn't deserve special attention. Seems pretty outdated thinking to me.
If you have an already gone to http://earlyactawareness.org or to check it out, I hope you will. Thanks for responding.
When I first saw you post, I wondered if it was just another "spam," which happens here from time to time.
But I visited the site and watched the video, and conclued the Early Act is an important efforet.
sounds like a wonderful ideal!!!
I'm not sure how I feel about it. But here is something to consider.... I found this while researching ....
This is a fairly unbiased article from the New York Times, shows both sides of the argument, devotes 2/3 to discussion of the EARLY Act. Recommended reading.
"Forty Years' War - In Push for Cancer Screening, Limited Benefits"
Nearly every body part susceptible to cancer now has an advocacy group, politician or athlete with a public awareness campaign to promote routine screening tests — even though it is well established that many of these exams offer little benefit for the general public.
An upshot of the decades-long war on cancer is the popular belief that healthy people should regularly examine their bodies or undergo screening because early detection saves lives. But in fact, except for a few types of cancer, routine screening has not been proven to reduce the death toll from cancer for people without specific symptoms or risk factors — like a breast lump or a family history of cancer — and could even lead to harm, many experts on health say.
The defense of the EARLY Act seems to be more about educating the general public than teasing out high risk people from the general public and targeting them with education.
Once can't ignore that those who are most vocal about supporting EARLY also happen to be groups that stand to benefit financially from it.
Those comments are NOT mine but what I found while researching.
Read the EARLY ACT and decide for yourself. Research, research and research!
Thanks for your thoughtful comments about my post on the EARLY Act. Sue Young notes the NY Times article, which had some good info but was critical (and I thought unbalanced) about EARLY. She cites the assertion by the Times that "routine screening has not been proven to reduce the death toll from cancer for people without specific symptoms or risk factors."
Well, what about the Pap test? That's routine screening for women without symptoms -- and it's drastically reduced the death toll from cervical cancer. What if we could do that same kind of "Pap" test for breast cancer and other killers -- wouldn't that be a good thing?
Also, while I agree that EARLY is in part about general education for the public, there is also funding for organizations that support young women who have breast cancer -- women who need and often don't get much help -- and to better educate clinicians.
Many younger adult women have had the experience of having a doctor tell them a breast lump "couldn't be cancer because you're too young -- only to find out they have breast cancer. One such story -- with an inspiring ending -- is Maimah Karmos's, at www.tigerlilyfoundation.org.
Thanks again to everyone who is following this. If you want more info visit www.thomas.gov for the bill itself and http://earlyactawareness.org to tell your US Senators to support this bill.