Free prostate and testicular screening... why is there none?

Sarcozies

osarusan wrote: »

Another day, another CA thread in the victimhood olympics.

Calling people victims in a thread about getting cancer screenings to 50% of the population.

It's a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them.

mc25

https://ijgc.bmj.com/content/29/4/669

Very interesting article about cervical cancer screening swapped for HPV testing.

Add that to the fact that with the HPV vaccine we may not even need CervicalCheck in the future (no bad thing imo).

Perhaps if Ireland were to switch to this we could use the money saved for something else? Perhaps a male-specific cancer screening programme, perhaps something else!

lozenges

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So if it was cervical screening we were discussing would you be saying the same thing?

Doubtful.

I would be saying the exact same thing, yes, if it were ineffective.

Cervical screening is cost effective because a reliable test exists to detect precancerous changes, it is a common condition, an effective treatment exists for premalignant changes, and smear tests are generally acceptable to most women.

There are criteria which must be fulfilled for a screening test to be a useful tool.

As I said I would support screening for prostate cancer if a sufficiently accurate test could be developed.

I support screening for colorectal cancer which disproportionately affects males.

It is wrong to take money from services where it could be used effectively to fund something that is poor value for money. With limited resources you have to try and do the greatest good for the greatest number.

In fact it is very possible with the recent increase in legal cases with substantial cost to the State that cervical and indeed all screening programmes will no longer be cost effective.. This is a serious threat to such programmes.
They will not be run if they are poor value for money.

Rodin

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

There should be free screenings for both sexes

Should we also MRI everyone in the country to detect brain cancer earlier?
Have a yearly PET scan per citizen to catch cancers in the country?

No? Why not?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

All the more reason to make it available.
And campaigns etc.

Why do companies go pink for breast cancer and never blue for male cancers?

The cervical screening is just as invasive as the prostate one, if not more.

As a terminal breast cancer patient, I find the pink bullshit nauseating. Many of us do.

As for breast cancer screening, it’s only really readily accessible at a certain age. Despite a family history and many highly indicative symptoms, I was fobbed off for 2.5 years solely because of my young age by which point it was metastatic. And my tale is by no means unusual.

The thing about testicular cancer is that it’s one of the few cancers that can even be cured at the metastatic stage. The same is not true of cervical and breast cancer. 100% of metastatic breast and cervical cancer patients will die of their disease. Despite the misleading stats, quoting five year survival rates, 25% of women who get breast cancer will die from it. Not all metastatic testicular cancer patients survive, but they do have a chance whereas metastatic breast and cervical cancer patients do not.

As for prostate cancer, I think awareness could be raised amongst younger men because it seems to be more aggressive in younger men. Many older men die with prostate cancer, not of it. So I think an awareness campaign and screening should be aimed at younger men, who are more likely to die of the disease than elderly men.

boombang

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So if it was cervical screening we were discussing would you be saying the same thing?

Doubtful.

Cervical cancer screening has been subject to cost effectiveness analysis, including here in Ireland. HIQA conducted an analysis in 2017.

While I don't think there's merit in population prostate or testicular cancer screening, I agree that women may be better advocates for their services and this can lead to unfairness in the system.

The simplistic analysis of some here is bemusing.

There's no established ovarian cancer screening programme. Did the sexist health system just not get that far yet or was it the fact that no reliable test suitable for screening has been found?

otnomart

Reason is:
"The European Union shares a common commitment to ensuring proper screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer"
"Breast, cervical and colorectal cancer accounts for 32% of cancer deaths in women and 11% in men."
Source: EU Website https://ec.europa.eu/health/non_communicable_diseases/cancer_en

tiredcity

https://youtu.be/bTgS0DuhaUU

Good video regarding pros and cons of PSA screening.

Testicular cancer screening would not meet Wilson criteria for the reasons others have outlined but what might help is better (free) access to ultrasound in symptomatic patients accessible through primary care.

Edgware

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Because there's no demand for it.

There should be, but men often tend to avoid getting that kind of thing checked out, especially if the test is... a bit on the invasive side.

I'm not an expert but men can get a full series of blood tests free which includes the PSA test which can give an indication of prostate trouble. I know men play the John Wayne roll but there are some basic signs that could indicate prostate problems such as getting up every hour during the night to have a leak ( not just the night you have 10 pints).
In any case from close family expereience I would advise every male approaching 50 to get a colonoscopy and a gastroscopy. After 50 be sure to stand back and have a good look at your lifestyle. It could make a difference between dying in your 60s rather than late 70s or 80s.
From a health policy money spent on early detection is far better used than that spent on costly late treatments

Galwayguy35

There is a blood test, I get it done yearly because there is a history of prostrate cancer in my family.

Not free though, I have to pay for it.

El_Duderino 09

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

As a terminal breast cancer patient, I find the pink bullshit nauseating. Many of us do.
...
As for prostate cancer, I think awareness could be raised amongst younger men because it seems to be more aggressive in younger men. Many older men die with prostate cancer, not of it. So I think an awareness campaign and screening should be aimed at younger men, who are more likely to die of the disease than elderly men.

Why do you find the pink stuff nauseating?

That sentiment seems completely at odds with the last paragraph about raising awareness of another cancer, Breast cancer has raised awareness to the point that it can be described as "pink bullshit" and I know what you mean. Isn't that great work in terms of raising public awareness?

Edgware

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

There is a blood test, I get it done yearly because there is a history of prostrate cancer in my family.

Not free though, I have to pay for it.

If you get the blood test request form from your doctor specifying which tests he/she wants done and book a test at your local public hospital then the test is free. You will have to pay the doc unless you have a medical card.

However if you use the services of the practice nurse you will pay

Rezident

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

We have a wonderful free breast and cervical screening provided by the state, there might have been some detrimental errors made, but the screening exists nonetheless and they are a wonderful service.

However, why is there none for male specific cancers such as prostate and testicular?

You might argue that men can do a self exam in the shower, but by the time lumps are apparent it is often progressed and more serious. By that logic, women can do a breast exam in the shower too. Furthermore, vasectomised men often have small lumps called sperm granulomas which further strengthens the argument for national testicular screening so men aren't ignoring more sinister lumps thinking they're just granulomas.

Prostate cancers are very curable if caught early but needs a professional medical exam and intervention before any symptoms such as pain or bladder issues arise.

For the inevitable argument "just go to your GP". A GP consultation is €60 and an ultrasound is €120... So men have to fork out €180 for an equivalent procedure that women get free.
Free screening will save lives.

Why is there no free prostate and testicular screening?

Because men are not valued anymore. Who commits the most suicides? Who is not allowed in the lifeboats when the ship is sinking? Who has a life expectancy of 8-10 years less than women? Men.


Women win 85% of custody battles, men are deprived of their own children, so no wonder they keep killing themselves.



And seemingly most problems today are blamed on men or the 'patriarchy' whatever that means. There are whole areas of the social "sciences" that are hostile to men and masculinity now. And when an individual male does something wrong, it is not just the individual's fault, it was "toxic masculinity" - as if masculinity itself is to blame. And sentient, otherwise intelligent, people believe these lies, for some reason.


I feel so sorry for the young males growing up in this world, their odds are not good.

El_Duderino 09

Rezident wrote: »

Because men are not valued anymore. Who commits the most suicides? Who is not allowed in the lifeboats when the ship is sinking? Who has a life expectancy of 8-10 years less than women? Men.


Women win 85% of custody battles, men are deprived of their own children, so no wonder they keep killing themselves.



And seemingly most problems today are blamed on men or the 'patriarchy' whatever that means. There are whole areas of the social "sciences" that are hostile to men and masculinity now. And when an individual male does something wrong, it is not just the individual's fault, it was "toxic masculinity" - as if masculinity itself is to blame. And sentient, otherwise intelligent, people believe these lies, for some reason.


I feel so sorry for the young males growing up in this world, their odds are not good.

Do you feel those things about yourself? Do you actually have this internalised hatred of your maleness?

Galadriel

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

There should be free screenings for both sexes

There is. There are 4 national screening programmes and two are for male and female.

Lozenges and other posters already explained why there is no prostate screening programme

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why do you find the pink stuff nauseating?

That sentiment seems completely at odds with the last paragraph about raising awareness of another cancer, Breast cancer has raised awareness to the point that it can be described as "pink bullshit" and I know what you mean. Isn't that great work in terms of raising public awareness?

Where do I start? It’s companies cynically cashing in on a horrific disease (even if you survive it) when in reality the amounts they give to related to charities are often quite minuscule.

Secondly, precious little of what they DO donate goes towards research into curing metastatic breast cancer despite the fact that 20-30% of early stage breast cancer patients will see their cancer return metastatic.

Finally, trying to paint breast cancer as fluffy and glittery and a fun rite of passage is deeply distasteful, even to the many women who get through it. Those survivors will have had body parts chopped off, radiation burns that may never go away, some will be left with permanent “chemo brain”, some will be left with heart problems. LOL, so fun! And imagine those of us who are going to die from it? Hey, my rib just pathologically fractured and the fear of the cancer spreading to my brain is ever present but at least I have this funky pink pen with which to document my constant fear and dread.

And no, it’s not at all at odds with my last paragraph because many people who loathe the pink nonsense have a lot of excellent suggestions for what would be more resonant, informative campaigns. Tell me, what does draping things in pink tell people? Many people believe breast cancer is completely curable now - trust me on that. I’ve had people tell me that at least I got the “good” cancer despite the fact that I received a death sentence on diagnosis day. So how effective is an awareness campaign that leaves people largely ignorant of the utter misery the disease causes and the fact that 1 in 4 women who get the disease still die from it?

Here is a great, resonant infographic (with notes on how to improve it) that has nothing to do with happy clappy pink nonsense. And this is also an infographic that could be directed at men to show them the symptoms they could look out for re: breast cancer as the signs are pretty much the same.

El_Duderino 09

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Where do I start? It’s companies cynically cashing in on a horrific disease (even if you survive it) when in reality the amounts they give to related to charities are often quite minuscule.

Secondly, precious little of what they DO donate goes towards research into curing metastatic breast cancer despite the fact that 20-30% of early stage breast cancer patients will see their cancer return metastatic.

Finally, trying to paint breast cancer as fluffy and glittery and a fun rite of passage is deeply distasteful, even to the many women who get through it. Those survivors will have had body parts chopped off, radiation burns that may never go away, some will be left with permanent “chemo brain”, some will be left with heart problems. LOL, so fun! And imagine those of us who are going to die from it? Hey, my rib just pathologically fractured and the fear of the cancer spreading to my brain is ever present but at least I have this funky pink pen with which to document my constant fear and dread.

And no, it’s not at all at odds with my last paragraph because many people who loathe the pink nonsense have a lot of excellent suggestions for what would be more resonant, informative campaigns. Tell me, what does draping things in pink tell people? Many people believe breast cancer is completely curable now - trust me on that. I’ve had people tell me that at least I got the “good” cancer despite the fact that I received a death sentence on diagnosis day. So how effective is an awareness campaign that leaves people largely ignorant of the utter misery the disease causes and the fact that 1 in 4 women who get the disease still die from it?

Here is a great, resonant infographic (with notes on how to improve it) that has nothing to do with happy clappy pink nonsense. And this is also an infographic that could be directed at men to show them the symptoms they could look out for re: breast cancer as the signs are pretty much the same.

I appreciate it's more acute for you, but i think it's totally wrong to oppose publicity for a cause like that. You're looking way too deep into it. The objective is to get publicity for the disease, to raise public awareness for it and to make people aware of the basics re checking their own health and getting medical checks early if they notice something is amiss.

The fact that companies see it as worth their while to take part is a symptom of the massive success of the campaign. I don't care how much the companies donate as the're not there to care about breast cancer, they exist to make profit. They piggy-back on the massive success of the breast cancer awareness drive.

I think you're looking at it all wrong. It's about raising awareness and getting basic health advice out to the public in a way that everyone can understand. Simple as that. Companies are about publicity and profits, not breast cancer which is fine because it's not their job to care about breast cancer.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gonna be honest, El Duderino, I’ve no interest in getting into a back-and-forth with you about this. I’ve given you my reasons. Take them or leave them. And I won’t be lectured to about how I, as a cancer patient, should feel about these campaigns.

Oh and because of awareness campaigns, I knew I had highly indicative signs. I was still fobbed off for far too long despite having that knowledge. So what good was that awareness to me? And I know plenty of other people in my position too.

El_Duderino 09

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Gonna be honest, El Duderino, I’ve no interest in getting into a back-and-forth with you about this. I’ve given you my reasons. Take them or leave them. And I won’t be lectured to about how I, as a cancer patient, should feel about these campaigns.

Oh and because of awareness campaigns, I knew I had highly indicative signs. I was still fobbed off for far too long despite having that knowledge. So what good was that awareness to me? And I know plenty of other people in my position too.

That's grand.

I wish other health campaigns had the massive success that Breast Cancer Awareness has had - evidenced by the fact that even soulless corporations jump on the bandwagon because it's so well known.