We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Delete thread please!
Options

bumbledore
Posts: 6 Forumite
...................................
0
Comments
-
What's the big deal? If you don't want to go, don't. But it's 30 seconds of your life and then you can forget about it again for another three years.
I hardly see how offering women an optional screening programme to detect cancer or potential cancers is 'disgraceful'! Like you say, their efficacy might not be proven, and there is a definite problem with incidentosis, i.e. the more you look for stuff, the more you find, even if those conditions are benign. But at the end of the day, no one's forcing you. Just don't go if you don't want to."Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward Abbey.0 -
I'd prefer to be screened at 20. Some under 25s ARE dying, there was a case in the paper the other day. It may be rarer but that doesn't mean it can't happen. I'd be livid if as an under 25 i'd developed cervical cancer and they'd had a chance to spot it. .
Then again if you'd rather take your chances move to England where we have the 25+ rule.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
My opinion is, if it might save my life, it's worth it whatever my age.
You're turning down a potentially life saving test because you don't like how a letter is worded.
Your choice.0 -
I'm not sure what your point is. Or where you are.
But a smear test isn't *that* terrible; often they find pre-cancerous conditions and the rates of cervical cancer have fallen, dramtically. Given the fact that it's a relatively simple, low cost procedure I think it's a good idea.
By screening as many women as possible, regularly, the cancer doesn't have chance to actually 'develop', as cervical erosions and other pre-cancerous conditions are often spotted and early treatment prevents more serious complications.
But if you don't want to be tested that's your choice.
Just because high numbers of women are tested and a 'low' proprotion of these have to be recalled for further tests doesn't make the testing a waste of time. It's not invasive; it takes minutes to do, often in a GP surgery.
read thisDon't put it DOWN; put it AWAY"I would like more sisters, that the taking out of one, might not leave such stillness" Emily DickinsonJanice 1964-2016
Thank you Honey Bear0 -
If the OP isn't sexually active, the chances of her having cervical cancer is quite low."If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." -- Red Adair0
-
I had pre cancerous cells diagnosed from a smear at the age of 24. This was when you could get smears in England at 18.
I had treatment and it was successful. I have recently had a smear and the pre cancerous cells have come back (I have yearly smears cos of previous treatment).
It is your right to refuse the invitation of a smear test, but why would you? I just hope we don't see you on here in a few years telling us you have cervical cancer.0 -
It's obviously completely optional, you have to give consent for any medical procedure and it is your prerogative to refuse. I am 25, live in Scotland, and two of my friends have been found to have abnormal cells which they had to have treated. A full blown case of cervical cancer is obviously more unlikely the younger you are, but if early cell changes can be detected then i'm all for it.0
-
A woman in Bristol died from cervical cancer recently as she was too young for a routine test and they refused to give her one when asked.
I loathe smear tests - I find them utterly repugnant, but I'm pretty sure the treatment for cancer would be worse.0 -
bumbledore wrote: »Because I question the validity of such a test and how it is made out to be something compulsory.
'How it's made out to be something compulsory'. Hmm. Is it really? I've always known that every screening is optional, as I'm sure do most other women. Seems like a bad case of user error to me. If you know it's not compulsory (as you seem to) why are you getting so aerated?"Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward Abbey.0 -
I think you're mad, it should start at 20.
Im sure the families of the young ladies who have passed away due to non-screenings would have rather they been "ordered" for one.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards