Kolata, Gina. "Considering When It Might Be Best Not to Know About Cancer." The New York Times 30 Oct. 2011, Health sec.: A21. The New York Times. 29 Oct. 2011. Web. 30 Oct. 2011.
Considering When It Might Be Best Not to Know About Cancer
After the same methods for decades of choosing to screen for cancer immediately if a person seemed to be at risk, doctors are beginning to think differently. In the article “Considering When It Might Be Best Not to Know About Cancer” by Gina Kolata, a bold new theory about cancer screenings have arisen. Experts say that screenings for cancer, especially breast, prostate, and cervical cancer, could actually harm the patient’s health instead of hurt them. This statement is completely earth shattering when it comes to our basic knowledge about cancer. It is almost an immediate thought when someone is diagnosed with cancer to go and get a screening. Clinical trial results are saying “screening often leads to what can be disabling treatments for men whose cancer otherwise would have never harmed them.” As the article goes on to say, screening for cancer is what everyone is familiar with, and to slowly move away from screening patients so often would possibly make them lack confidence in their doctors. Even doctors themselves say that this shocking new statistic may make things difficult between themselves and their patients: “General practitioners, who may agree with the new guidelines, worry about getting involved in long conversations with patients trying to explain why they might reconsider having a mammogram every year or a P.S.A. test at all.”
This theory of less screenings for cancer is definitely shocking to the medical world. The article even says since 1845 when Rudolf Virchow said that cancer is an uncontrolled growth that spreads and kills, and that there is now a new 21st century definition of cancer that needs to be held in account for new treatments. The idea that screenings are bad seems insane, but this article actually does make sense of it. It states that screenings could lead to dangerous medical procedures that were possibly unnecessary for the type of cancer that the patient had, because as doctors have discovered in recent decades, not all cancers are fatal. The article says, “Cancer experts say they cannot ignore a snowballing body of evidence over the past 10 years showing over and over that while early detection through widespread screening can help in some cases, those cases are small in number for most cancers. At the same time, the studies are more clearly defining screening’s harms.”
I believe this article was really well written and interesting. It made things clear to me about cancer screenings, both the pros and cons about them. I definitely am able to see both sides of how the screenings could help patients, but also hurt patients. With many different doctor’s comments on the matter and many different point of view presented, it made it easy for me to form my own opinion about it. The author did a great job of making things easy to understand, and I really enjoyed reading this article.
Amanda Austi
ReplyDeleteReview of Amy Pepe’s Article
“Considering When It Might Be Best Not To Know About Cancer”
Amy did a good job presenting this article in a comprehensive and interesting way. One thing that she did well was she had a very good hook, “after the same methods for decades of choosing to screen for cancer immediately if a person seemed to be at risk, doctors are beginning to think differently”. This engaged the reader into the article as suppose to just getting right into her review. Another thing that Amy did well was she had a good explanation as to why the new findings about cancer affect humanity. She links her findings as a monumental addition to medical research. Last, I think she had a good use of quotes. Her quotes added to the efficacy of her review and provided insight on the scientists’ views on the issue.
Although Amy’s review was very good, there are some things that could be improved on. One thing that could have been extensively elaborated on was why the screenings for cancer can have negative effects on patients. She does state that one way it can affect them is it could lead to dangerous procedures. However, it is ambiguous as to why these screenings really do have a harmful effect. It would have been clearer if this were explained. Second, I think that if Amy explained the scientific aspect of the article better, meaning the reasoning behind all of this testing, it would have made it easier to understand as well.
One thing that shocked me in her review was the fact that the screenings for cancer will actually hurt patients. It’s scary to think that procedures that doctors have dogmatized as essential to detrimental diseases such as doctor are now being questioned. It’s also sad to think that the doctors are trying to help the patients, but are indirectly harming them. I would like to learn more about the effects of screening on cancer patients, and what is the reasoning for these harmful effects.
Drew Jackson: Review of Amy Pepe's Article
ReplyDeleteAmy did several things very well in her article. She used quotes multiple times, and did so effectively. They definitely helped to prove her point. Also, she did a nice job explaining why screenings may actually caused damage. This was critical, and she pulled it off very well. Her summary of the article itself was well written, as it covered all the article’s bases in a concise fashion.
There are other things Amy could work on. When explaining how this affects the world, she was rather vague. More detail, both global and perhaps a few personal anecdotes about individuals, would have completed this. Also, her review would be more powerful if she used more complex language, instead of always using words like “insane.”
What I learned from this article was what doctors were predicting for the reactions of their patients. After all, some people insist on having a mammogram and other screening tests annually, and all that will now be called into question.
Amy Pepe did a phenomenal job presenting her article in a clear and thorough way. Particularly, one thing Ms. Pepe did extremely well was draw the reader into her article. She had a great hook that engaged the reader and prepared them for what she is going to say next. Another thing Ms. Pepe did very well was her explanation of why screenings may actually cause damage. She was clear and her point was very evident, while she was describing a very controversial issue. And finally, Ms. Pepe executed the use of quotations extremely well, for they added insights besides her own to the article review, and in this instance insight from scientists. While there were many positive aspects of Ms. Pepe’s review, I do have a few suggestions to further improve her response. Firstly, she could have gone into more detail on how shocking the theory of less screenings is to the “medical world.” Secondly, Ms. Pepe could have possibly went into more thorough and deeper detail on the scientific aspects of the article, for it would have made the overall meaning of the article more understandable for the reader. What I learned from this article is what doctors were predicting for the reactions of their patients. Overall, I found Ms. Pepe’s review imperatively informative and interesting.
ReplyDeleteLettsgoo
Amy’s review of her article contains many interesting facts. Amy portrays the shock that the medical world experiences very well. Doctors that have been having their patients screened for cancer for years are suddenly told that screening makes many situations worse. She also presents a brief history of cancer in a very cogent manner. Cancer was first identified by Rudolf Virchow in 1845 and has since gained a new, 21st century definition. The fact that Amy best presented was that screenings may not be as necessary as once thought. Amy points out that screenings subject patients to many dangerous and possibly unnecessary surgeries that could make a person worse off instead of better.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few aspects of Amy’s article that can be improved. First off, Amy can pay a little more attention to grammar and word use. In the first paragraph she states that experts believe that screenings “could actually harm the patient’s health instead of hurt them.” I believe she means to say help instead of hurt, but it is small changes like these that can improve a review. Also, Amy can try to give some specific examples of how early screenings turned for the worse.
One fact I found to be incredible is that screenings can actually hurt people. I believe most people feel that early screenings are a way save lives. Many cases are reported where early screenings are successful, but the fact that most are in fact harmful is truly eye opening.
Amy Pepe’s article review was an excellent summary of this new discovery that cancer screenings might actually be harmful. She chose an interesting topic, so it was well done that she effectively appealed to the reader by first introducing the subject and then the article itself. Another positive aspect of Amy’s review was that she made connections between general belief and the newfound research. She does this by stating that “it is almost an immediate thought when someone is diagnosed with cancer to go and get a screening,” and then going on to say that “clinical trial results are saying ‘screening often leads to what can be disabling treatments for men whose cancer otherwise would have never harmed them.’” This example also includes a third aspect of Amy’s review that was very good: her use of quotes. By citing the article, Amy not only shows her understanding of the article, but provides the reader with concrete examples of what she is discussing.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that could improve Amy’s review would be an expansion on the explanation of why screenings are becoming negative procedures. She includes one reason in the second paragraph, but it would be only beneficial to elaborate and include more information as to why screenings are so harmful. Additionally, one other improvement would be to just give her work a quick proofread. In the first paragraph, she says, “experts say that screenings for cancer, especially breast, prostate, and cervical cancer, could actually harm the patient’s health instead of hurt them.” It is clear that she means “instead of help them,” so it would just be good to give the article a quick proofread first.
Before reading this article and Amy’s review, I had no idea that cancer screenings were in question. In the modern world, it only seems right to double check everything and go through screenings even at the slightest notion of cancer. However, after reading about this new discovery, it is scary to think that these seemingly precautionary moves could actually be contributing to the problem. Hopefully, in the future, there will be ways to avoid this harm without giving up the knowledge that comes from screenings.
Amy did an excellent job with her review. She presented the information in a very clean and concise way. One of the things that I especially appreciated about this review, was that we were immediately interested in reading the entire thing after the first few sentences which grabbed our attention. She also went into very great detail when explaining why screenings could actually damage the patients. She did a very good job describing such a controversial issue, that people often find very emotional. The final thing that I especially enjoyed from her review was her use of quotes directly from the article. These served to add meaning and depth to the review, and again, gave us a better sense as to the author’s original intent upon writing the article. One thing that Amy could have done better however is explain more about the danger of these screenings. She did say that the procedures were dangerous, but she could have elaborated on the emotional and mental harm such tests can inflict on a person. There is also one mistake in the review that she could have caught where she used the word “hurt” when she clearly meant “help.” This was a minor error, but had it been fixed it could have improved the quality of the article quite a bit. Before reading this article, I had never questioned the necessity of cancer screenings. But after reading this, I now understand that these tests, presumably for our safety and wellness, can in fact inflict more harm upon the patients than it can help. Hopefully in time these drawbacks will be reduced.
ReplyDelete