12/18/24
November 19, 2009
Stephanie Spielman Dies of Cancer: Stephanie Spielman, the wife of former NFL player Chris Spielman, has died after a 12-year fight against breast cancer. She was 42. The mother of four, Spielman discovered a lump in her breast at age 30 during a self-exam. A charity fund that she created has raised more than $6.5 million for breast-cancer research, education and patient assistance at Ohio State University's Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital. "I know there's a reason God gave me breast cancer, and I'm supposed to do something with it," she said in 1998.
Very ironic rcade, the groups like Mrs. Spielman's are really fighting the new recommendation. I don't blame them, I saw an interview on our local news with a doctor from the Cleveland Clinic, she said the experts that developed the new guidelines were not even doctors. This is a very real reminder of why those should not be adopted.
RIP Mrs. Spielman.
posted by jojomfd1 at 02:31 AM on November 20, 2009
As someone who lost his mother when she was 42, I wish her family the best. I am sure they are very proud of her.
I have to agree with Demophon on the timing of this sad event. It is ridiculous to tell women they don't need to do regular mammograms until age 50 when it is painfully obvious that the disease can strike at any time. It also opens up the door for insurance companies to turn down paying for the procedure for women who are younger than 50... like Stephanie Spielman.
posted by scully at 07:19 AM on November 20, 2009
The issue with mammograms is whether the benefits outweigh the risks. For women in their 40s, more than 1,900 women have to be screened for an entire decade to save a single life. This doesn't mean that all women should be treated the same -- a woman with history of cancer in her family should be screened earlier in life -- but I think it's proper for medical experts to assess the efficacy of programs like this to ensure that resources are allocated properly and patients and doctors are informed.
I don't know Spielman's history, but once she found a suspicious lump in her breast, I don't think that an insurance company would have denied the tests necessary to ensure that it wasn't cancer. That's a separate issue from whether all women should get yearly mammograms in their 30s or 40s.
posted by rcade at 08:32 AM on November 20, 2009
My heart breaks for Chris Spielman and their children.
posted by steelergirl at 10:35 AM on November 20, 2009
For women in their 40s, more than 1,900 women have to be screened for an entire decade to save a single life.
The research is all over the map as to whether it is effective to screen women 40-49. You would think they would wait until their was some solid evidence one way or the other before they adjusted recommendations. Lumps in women's breasts are not uncommon. By getting rid of screening mammography, you end up with a lot of nervous women getting the more expensive diagnostic mammography.
RIP. I think it is wonderful how she kept on living her life to the fullest amidst these multiple battles with cancer. She had two kids since her initial diagnosis.
posted by bperk at 11:03 AM on November 20, 2009
The same week the "experts" said women should get less mammograms you get a perfect example of why women should do any and all preventative measures. Ironic.
she said the experts that developed the new guidelines were not even doctors. This is a very real reminder of why those should not be adopted.
This is a very good reminder why the Internet should be destroyed. Because it's an incubator for blanket statements. The fact that someone is not a doctor doesn't mean they can't assess the value of a test. In fact, if they actually understand statistics and probability, it would be a benefit. Not all doctors do. Most people don't. The subject is often counter-intuitive and leaves people thinking it's nonsense ("90% of statistics are made up"). Look at the trouble people had in the Bill Belichick thread about probability. Regardless of whether they're a doctor or not, I wouldn't want them predicting outcomes for me.
I know he can be a controversial figure, but if you're seriously interested in the subject and not just looking to acquire a new canvas for your finely wrought set of broad brushes, Malcolm Gladwell's article on mammography and the perception of what is "obvious" is a look.
You would think they would wait until their was some solid evidence one way or the other before they adjusted recommendations.
But what if there all solid evidence against mammography is shouted down as controversial or pseudo-science? We think we're at the forefront of technology, but often we use these things to reinforce our existing beliefs and prejudices. This is a particularly delicate subject because it's health and womens' health to boot. But no one's saying, "Fuck it, smoke a carton a day and don't worry about getting screened." What people are saying is you can't rely on a magic machine to take care of you, you also have to examine yourself and get regular exams from a doctor. But the debate gets turned into a False Dilemma between mammograms and no exams.
From that article:
"In a major study of mammography's effectiveness . . . women who were given regular, thorough breast exams but no mammograms were compared with those who had thorough breast exams and regular mammograms, and no difference was found in the death rates from breast cancer between the two groups. "
"There is nothing in science or technology that has even come close to the sensitivity of the human finger with respect to the range of stimuli it can pick up. It's a brilliant instrument. But we simply don't trust our tactile sense as much as our visual sense."
posted by yerfatma at 02:23 PM on November 20, 2009
What people are saying is you can't rely on a magic machine to take care of you, you also have to examine yourself and get regular exams from a doctor.
I don't think so, yerfatma. That same task force has said breast self-exams are also ineffective at reducing mortality, and have advised doctors not to teach them. That is pretty much a wait until you are 50 approach unless you have a lot of other risk factors. Considering how often women who don't have risk factors get breast cancer, that isn't very comforting. There have been many studies aimed specifically at the 40-49 age range, and they have been conflicting. There hasn't been some new major study that changed the entire equation. This debate has been raging for at least 10 years. The fact that this task force disagrees with the American Cancer Society, HHS, and others doesn't mean that the others are believing pseudo-science. They all have the same evidence, but come to different conclusions.
posted by bperk at 03:47 PM on November 20, 2009
doesn't mean that the others are believing pseudo-science.
No, no, I definitely don't want to suggest that. More my reaction to the people suggesting any change in approach is a bad idea.
posted by yerfatma at 04:10 PM on November 20, 2009
The issue with mammograms is whether the benefits outweigh the risks. For women in their 40s, more than 1,900 women have to be screened for an entire decade to save a single life.
I don't think I want to tell the above to a woman who wasn't screened and has developed breast cancer.
posted by Howard_T at 04:38 PM on November 20, 2009
I wouldn't want to tell someone who'd been hit by lightning there's little risk of being hit by lightning.
posted by yerfatma at 05:22 PM on November 20, 2009
I was not saying any change in approach is a bad idea...just this new one the government task force came up with. I have been looking at a lot of articles, and it was misstated on the local news channel I watched. There were no oncologists on the task force. It seems they do have medical professionals, they also had insurance company director.
I wouldn't want to tell someone who'd been hit by lightning there's little risk of being hit by lightning.
I wouldn't want to go to a preventative medicine specialist for treatment of cancer either.
posted by jojomfd1 at 12:39 AM on November 21, 2009
The same week the "experts" said women should get less mammograms you get a perfect example of why women should do any and all preventative measures. Ironic.
My thoughts go out to the Spielman family.