“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Now, there’s much confusion on the part of women over whether to have mammograms. The process isn’t infallible, unfortunately; also, misinterpretations of its results have caused a number of cancer-free women to undergo mastectomies — often radical ones — when they didn’t have to. Moreover, each of these individuals has to live with the belief that they’ve had cancer, and must constantly be on the alert for any signs of its recurrence — signs they do not find. At the same time, they are subjected to even more X-ray examinations on a regular basis. They can also have insurance and employment problems (as can many other cancer patients).

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.

At this time many more doctors disagree than agree with the need for prophylactic mastectomies. Those against the procedure cite the errors possible in diagnosis, including the misinterpretation of mammographic patterns. Once again, negative suggestion rules in the present and is projected into the future, for the individual is told that she is at the mercy of her own bodily processes, which might go awry at any moment.

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.