“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Seth didn’t mention it in the session tonight, but Jane and I find it extremely interesting that just last week much national publicity was given to the ongoing two-year-old controversy among cancer specialists over whether women — especially those under 50 years of age — should be given routine mammograms (X-ray examinations) in efforts to detect breast cancer in its early stages.

A controversy related to that over mammograms, but one that hasn’t been nearly as well publicized, concerns “prophylactic subcutaneous mastectomy” — the process by which some women elect to have their breasts removed before they actually develop cancer in one or both of them. These women have been told that statistically they’re “high risk” prospects for cancer. Involved here are recent diagnostic procedures: the study of the “patient’s” family history, the study of the “density” and structure of her breast tissues as determined by mammogram patterns, and the detection of possibly premalignant cellular changes. In this preventative operation, the surgeon leaves the nipple and the skin of the breasts, and restores their bulk with implants of plastic or silicone.

Even when resorted to, prophylactic mastectomies are not foolproof, for a few women have still developed cancer in the area of the nipple. What Jane and I are very curious about, however, is how many “statistically vulnerable” women submitted to operations they didn’t need — for surely a significant number of them wouldn’t have developed cancer in the first place. The percentage is unknowable, of course. If it could be shown that most of the “high risk” women would get cancer, there wouldn’t be arguments about whether such mastectomies are of general value. As things are, though, because of the controversy women once again end up confused as to who is right and what to do. Large scale studies, including one by the National Cancer Institute, are planned to explore the whole question of prophylactic mastectomies.