Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 3, 1997)
EDITOR Doug Kouma OPINION EDITOR Anthony Nguyen EDITORIAL BOARD Paula Lavigne Joshua Gillin Jessica Kennedy Jeff Randall Erin Gibson Guest VIEW Tiny dot The confusion about mammograms grows From The Daily Texan AUSTIN, Texas (U-WIRE) — For more than a decade, health experts and the media portrayed regular mammograms as the Wunderkind of early breast cancer de tection. Now, National Institutes of Health ex perts have announced they do not recom mend regular mammograms for women in their 40s and that “breast cancer mortality is ho lower In [women who received mammograms in their 40s] than in controls.” Dr. Richard Klausner, director of NIH’s National Cancer Institute and the man who convened the NIH council, reported he was “shocked” by the panel’s announcement. But the NIH panel was right to admit its uncertainty. i Mammograms are unreliable, wnue they have lowered the mortality rate 30 per cent in women over 50, the data concerning mammograms’ efficacy for younger women is flawed, incomplete and even contradic tory. Women under 50 are often premeno pausal and therefore, have much denser breast tissue. Thus, cancerous cells are of ten obscured. There is also the law of unintended con sequences. Women responsibly went in for their yearly mammogram, but forsook the self-exam, a crucial component in early de tection. The results were tragic. Though many know the remarkable benefits of mammograms, few are aware of their flaws. Mammograms detect lumps one-eighth an inch across. Often, they detect cancer years before a self-exam, when a breast lump cannot be felt unless it is twice that size. In this sce nario, in which the cancer is “indolent,” women can often effectively stop the cancer’s spread through a lumpectomy, sur gical removal of the cancerous lump from the breast. Here, mammograms can play a critical role. tt n t nuwcvei, mammugiaius aic mi less ei fective in preventing the fatal spread of ag gressive cancer, which rapidly infests other organs—often before die interval between yearly mammograms has elapsed. Aggres sive cancer is more common in women un der 50. Perhaps women in this category should make more ftequent visits. But more mammograms yield more false positives while exposing women to higher doses of radiation. While there is no cure for breast can cer, the best method of detection is cautious and regular self-exams supplemented by mammograms—especially when there is a family history or if a patient is otherwise “at-risk.” In their own interest, women must re member medicine is not an exact science, and media and politicians—groups who so ardently push for these “panaceas” — are often medically ignorant. The NIH owed us the truth about this uphill struggle. What we choose to do with it is in our hands. Editorial Policy Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Spring 1997 Daily Nebraskan They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Univer sity of Nebraska-Lincoln, its employees , its student body or the University of Nebraska Board of Regents. A column is solely the opinion of its author. The Board of Regents serves as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Edito rial Board. The UNL Publications Board, established by the regents, supervises the production of the paper According to policy set fay the regents, responsibility for the edi torial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its student employees. Letter Policy . The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief let ters to the editor and guest columns, but does not guarantee their publication. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject any material submitted. Sub mitted material becomes the property of die Daily Nebraskan and cannot be re turned. Anony mous submissions will not i be published, those who submit letters '• must identify themselves by name, year in school, major and/or group affilia tion, if any. Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448. E-mail: letters@unlinfo.unl.edu. Mehsttng’s : VIEW DN LETTERS Spoon-fed This is in response to Sonia Hollimon-Stovail’s column “Level ing the field” (DN, Wednesday) on affirmative action. She compared affirmative action to building up Pacific’s football team so it could play on a level field with Nebraska. But affirmative action brings “the advantaged” down to the level of the “disadvantaged” (kind of like communism). Let’s face it. Affirmative action is institutionalized racism. A better analogy- is like spoon-feeding a child. For a while, it is necessary, but then after a while they need to learn to feed themselves. Affirmative action has served its purpose, but there really isn’t anything keeping “the disadvan taged” from growing up and feeding themselves. Perhaps the time and money spent on affirmative action should be used to further educate our disad vantaged groups and “level the playing field” in a positive way. Dennis Smolik freshman electrical engineering Tyranny? The dictionary defines tyranny as: arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority or oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler. When government officials fail to enter into meaningful dialogue with citizens who are directly affected by changes in government or possess insight into relevant issues, by way of both personal and professional Experience, then surely, the people i of the state of Nebraska are experi encing tyranny! The Nelson administration has demonstrated a callous disregard for input from blind citizens. They have ignored numerous studies indicating that a better way exists to provide vocational rehabilitation to the blind. The structure cited by these studies is a stand-alone service agency and is significantly different from that which is proposed in the Health and Human Services “Part nership.” Documented success in the 24 other states, having such an ap proach, show these agencies account for the placement of 70 percent of all blind persons placed in competi tive employment. In Nebraska, the blind have an unemployment rate of approximately 75 percent! Our elected officials have I Aaron Btrckelbrrg/DN dismissed the idea of a separate agency, at no additional cost to taxpayers. This, in spite of the specter of lost federal dollars due to violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. Of course Gov. Nelson and Lt. Gov. Robak simply respond “trust us!” Hiey define involvement as putting people on mailing lists, providing updates to “their” agenda. Never mind that Gov. Nelson spent $1,925,065.35 to hire consultants to identify methods to bring more federal matching dollars into Nebraska! Now we stand to forfeit federal dollars because of the failure of the “partnership” to comply with federal regulations for receipt of rehabilita tion monies. ■ Doug Boone Lincoln