Bio 103, Week 12

 I wanted to touch on the scientific bias of these two NY Times articles. I was really underwhelmed by the argument against annual breast cancer testing- largely because the research behind this recommendation just isn't good enough. I can't for the life of me understand why we would make such a serious and life-impacting decision based on a 7 year study of 54,000 women in the UK. Further limiting was the shallow interpretation of data. I won't babble on this particular point- others have discussed this in their posts.

But I do want to call attention to the brief shout out to similar guidelines for gynecological exams. It was only in recent years that doctors discovered the link between HPV and cervical cancer. An estimated 50% of the sexually active population has been exposed to HPV, and many (half, one might say) of them are at high risk for cervical cancer. Now, more than ever, young women should be screened. 18 year olds ARE being diagnosed with cervical cancer. Cervical cancer can be deadly. Why are we even discussing foregoing minimally invasive, largely painless, and risk-free (in terms of personal health) procedures that could, and have, saved lives?! The argument against testing is nothing more than an attempt at frugality on the behalf of health care providers. 

But not very many people pay close attention to science news and these articles will be widely disseminated and read by many. And, as we've discussed, many people take published scientific research as the gospel Truth. Even in class last week, someone said something to the effect of "well I guess it's true if the statistics say so." So, this article will use its questionable statistics, methods, and terminology to convince many that testing is "dangerous," a word strategically used to invoke fear. People will think that testing may cause them bodily harm.

This is just another example of the power of science in the formation of public opinion. And as long as people believe it to be irrefutable, it will continue to be the weapon of choice for politicians, et al. This time, pardon the wordplay, it could be deadly. 

I've been thinking about death, wanted to offer an alternative understanding. I'm part of an ongoing discussion on identity and the construction of the life narrative.

We spend a great deal of our lives "finding ourselves," or, in my mind, "creating ourselves." There is an author within each of us responsible for the creation of meaning. As we determine what is meaningful we create an identity for ourselves: we enable phrases like "I like" or "I love." We could look at death as a disruption of our authorship, of our free will. Our fear of death could be an existential, egocentric frustration centering around our authorship. Conversely, our love of life could be viewed as a perverse distortion of our love for ourselves, of our capacity to create ourselves.

In this way, modern medicine becomes an authorial aid, another mirror reflecting narcissus' gaze. Even when we fight to keep other people alive, we do it because our author has deemed them "meaningful" (or else we recognize and respect their narcissism and can put ourselves into their dying shoes - this recognition would revolutionize this proposition. I'm not sure I believe it though).

Why else would we want to prevent a natural, necessary process? We still haven't any answer to this question, except for maybe the idea that what comes after death is "uncertain." Well, why do we fear uncertainty? I believe it is because we love ourselves.

Monday's discussion was really interesting to me. Basically, I've been seeing science as (T)ruth for quite some time now. This class has given me an interesting perspective on science and seeing it as a work in progress, but when studying come out, or I'm told facts about our universe, I tend to believe them. Yes, I think that we'll always have more to discover, and that some things that we might value as "true" now will be proven to be false later. However, for right now, in order to keep me sane, I follow what the doctor orders, and believe what is told to me, unless I am given a large amount of proof to doubt it.

Which is why these articles on testing confused me so much. I don't know if I buy it! All these studies and articles and proof telling me something and I haven't decided if I'm going to believe it. Science! Facts! And now I'm doubtful!

We've been told the exact opposite all our lives. We've been told time and time again that we should get tested, and when we're not busy getting tested we should test ourselves. But now we're being told the opposite. Don't get tested, it doesn't help. What?? That doesn't even make sense. What about the 1 in whatever who it didn't save? That woman died because she didn't get tested. That's worth it enough to me. And what about the missing stat which someone in class was talking about. How many women had cancer but were just in treatment. How can we say that they maybe wouldn't have been better off if they had tested earlier. And don't test ourselves! That simply sounds like the health care industry (yes, industry) is trying to save money on over-reacting women or men who feel lumps. Well what if we're right? I think the money is worth it.

Basically I just don't buy it. I want more stats, more facts, more studies. And while I'm waiting I'm getting tested!