I See Your Breast and Raise You a Penis: A Word Game

breast versus penis word gameToday, the United States Preventive Services Task Force released its recommendation that women begin routine breast cancer screening at age 50, instead of 40. It has based this on the modest benefit of mammograms versus the harm of overtreatment.

First, let me explain that the study’s idea of modest benefit is a fifteen percent reduction in breast cancer deaths. That number sounds kind of good to me. If I were one of those women, I’d be one hundred percent happy with that.*

And the harm of overtreatment? Cancers might be removed that would have grown too slowly to kill the women in which they are detected. As you can imagine, this is a real drag for insurance companies who have to pay for the procedures when they would be happier to spin the Wheel of Fortune and bet their customers will die of natural causes. And since insurance companies are for-profit organizations, that’s exactly what they do when insuring us.

The other egregious harm the task force cites? Can mammography kill us, as cancer can? No, but unnecessary tests can cause anxiety. Isn’t it so much better for us just not to worry our pretty little heads about it? After all, only fifteen percent of our mothers, sisters, and daughters will be saved. What a tough choice.

According to one statistician, although this will save billions of dollars in health costs, “the money was buying something of net negative value. This decision is a no-brainer. The economy benefits, but women are the major beneficiaries.” I’m no number cruncher, but when did a fifteen percent reduction in mortality have a negative value?

So, what I’d like to do is play a little word game with a New York Times article published on this subject. Wherever there’s a mention of women and breast cancer, I’m going to substitute something else. See if you can tell where:

Overall, the report says, the modest benefit of the exam — reducing the dick cancer death rate by 15 percent — must be weighed against the harms. And those harms loom larger for men in their 40s, who are 60 percent more likely to experience them than men 50 and older but are less likely to have their balls fall off, skewing the risk-benefit equation. The task force concluded that one death by cock rot is prevented for every 1,904 men age 40 to 49 who are screened for 10 years, compared with one prick withering for every 1,339 men age 50 to 74, and one fatal phallus for every 377 men age 60 to 69.

But the new report conflicts with advice from groups like the American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology. They are staying with their guidelines advising annual knob screening starting at age 40.

The cancer society agreed that man-o-grams had risks as well as benefits but, he said, the society’s experts had looked at “‘virtually all” the task force and additional data and concluded that the benefits of annual exams starting at age 40 outweighed the risks of unnecessary dickectomy.

Private insurers are required by law in every state except Utah to pay for a chubby checker for men in their 40s.

But the new guidelines are expected to alter the grading system for health plans, which are used as a marketing tool. The message for most men is to forgo ensuring their johnsons aren’t killing them if they are in their 40s. In fact, even though exams are of greater benefit to older men, they still prevent only a small fraction of dick cancer deaths.

Researchers worry the new report will be interpreted as a political effort by the Obama administration to save money on health care costs.

Of course, Dr. Dingle Berry noted, if the new guidelines are followed, billions of dollars will be saved.

“But the money was buying something of net negative value,” he said. “This decision is a no-brainer. The economy benefits, but men are the major beneficiaries.”

Do you doubt that if the above were true, there would be a million men brandishing pitchforks and torches marching on Washington right now? You know the answer as well as I do. I’m just being a tease.

P.S. On a serious note, check out this study on digital mammography funded by the National Cancer Institute and published in 2005. Digital mammography is much more accurate in detecting breast cancer in women under 50 and in older women with dense breast tissue than traditional mammography. It saved my mother’s life. I may need it to save mine someday. But even at high risk, my insurance will not cover the computer-assisted exam. The superior technology exists, right now, to save more women. Why isn’t it recommended? Because it’s a lot more expensive than telling us not to worry or to wait to have the inferior test. Statistically speaking, we’re not worth it.

*Update 2018: As it turns out, I was one of those women. In June of 2012, at the age of 47, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. It was caught early because of a digital mammogram that showed enough detail for a radiologist to see a very small tumor. I’m lucky that my insurance covered the more sensitive test. If I’d had to wait until age 50 to get it, I could be dead now, and my little word game would just be a sad coda to my smart-alecky life. I’m happy it didn’t turn out that way.

Copyright Notice 2018 Magick Sandwich

11 replies
  1. arin721
    arin721 says:

    both md anderson and baylor's cancer centers here in houston have stated that they have no intention of following those guidelines…

    problem will be when the insurance companies refuse to cover a "routine" mammogram.

  2. HermanTurnip
    HermanTurnip says:

    As I was reading your word substitution example paragraph, my genitals made a rapid, instinctive retreat inside my body. I tried coaxing them out with this month's issue of Playboy, but they were so traumatized they refused to me out and play. Thanks a lot, Kathcom….


  3. kathcom
    kathcom says:

    @arin721: I'm glad to hear that. But it won't take long for insurance companies to use the new guidelnes as an excuse. I know the equipment is expensive but I believe that digital mammos should be considered routine as well.

    @Herman Turnip: I'm sorry to have had that effect on you. You're not the first to react to my words that way. You probably won't be the last….

  4. arin721
    arin721 says:

    my instinctive reaction is still ~whew~, though, because i don't *want* a mammogram; however i'm actually in what could be considered a high risk group, so i do it anyways. i prefer that choice to be *mine* and my doctor's, though, and not my insurance company's and you're right, the insurance companies will jump on the bandwagon and limit testing. scary :(

  5. slommler
    slommler says:

    I didn't realize that digital mammograms where more accurate!!?? And of course insurance companies would not want us to know that! And I so agree that if it where men's dicks; it would be covered with no questions asked in a heart-beat!!!

  6. Jen
    Jen says:

    I hate to use the word rationing but there it is. If the issue were for the male appendage this wouldn't even be an issue. What surprises me is that men enjoy breasts probably more than women do. What will they think when there aren't as many breasts around?

  7. kathcom
    kathcom says:

    It's true. Digital mammography is much better for younger women and for women who have dense breast tissue. For example, women who've had estrogen replacement therapy can have the dense tissue of a much younger woman. It's hard to get a good view without digital assist.

    I worked for a plastic surgeon who insisted on mammos before any breast surgery. Believe it or not, that's not required by law and sometimes isn't even covered. We had a woman in her early thirties come in for a breast reduction. She complained about having a mammo but did the digital one and paid out of pocket. It turned out she had breast cancer and the mammo most certainly saved her life. She wasn't in a high risk category and would never have been checked otherwise. I'm sure she's happy to be in the paltry 15% of women saved by any kind of mammography.

    In fact, she started speaking out against the lack of coverage for women under 40. She must be very disheartened by what's happening now.

    It's a shame that women's health is not valued highly enough for digital mammography to be used aggressively and to be covered by all insurance companies.

  8. Aunt Jackie
    Aunt Jackie says:

    Great article, and good information too.

    Yeah, a friend of mine's sister turned up with breast cancer this last year. She would be dead right now if she had waited until 50 to start getting mammograms.

    I started mine last year, I'm not even 40 yet. My B.F.F. kept insisting that I start.

    Going to the doctor sucks, but we as women must press on. (no pun to the painful tit press of the mammogram intended lol)


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *