My Evaluation and Input
by Chelsea Turner
Basics
My midterm topic is mammography. The central question is whether mammographies should be encouraged/implemented.
It is in my estimation that in the context of Obama-care: including female treatment and medical procedures in health care has been neglected until this recent government proposition. Mammography may be a crucial consideration to be covered by all health insurance providers.
My position: I support mammography, the research surrounding it and the inclusion of the procedure in health insurance policies. Women must be aware of the best ways to care for their bodies, and the science that is available should be used. While I acknowledge the risks of radiological exposure, I feel the research and statistics showing rates of exposure are insignificant compared to the gains made in mammographic science.
An analysis of this debate could be important to the field of Rhetoric of Science because it begs the gender question as well as the way we make the body a scientific being rather than a being of social implications. If the body is simply scientific, is it because it is a woman's? Or is it that social embodiment is useless in the eyes of science - does the crux of this debate simply in rationalism vs. humanism?
My midterm topic is mammography. The central question is whether mammographies should be encouraged/implemented.
It is in my estimation that in the context of Obama-care: including female treatment and medical procedures in health care has been neglected until this recent government proposition. Mammography may be a crucial consideration to be covered by all health insurance providers.
My position: I support mammography, the research surrounding it and the inclusion of the procedure in health insurance policies. Women must be aware of the best ways to care for their bodies, and the science that is available should be used. While I acknowledge the risks of radiological exposure, I feel the research and statistics showing rates of exposure are insignificant compared to the gains made in mammographic science.
An analysis of this debate could be important to the field of Rhetoric of Science because it begs the gender question as well as the way we make the body a scientific being rather than a being of social implications. If the body is simply scientific, is it because it is a woman's? Or is it that social embodiment is useless in the eyes of science - does the crux of this debate simply in rationalism vs. humanism?
Looking at key terms and their role in the debate
Women
Despite movements to help females progress in society, including them in health care has been long neglected. The use of "women" in alignment with mammograms reduces the rhetorical appeal to health providers. Arguably, women have the ability to feel cancer development from the surface of their bodies unlike males in the prostate. This comparison of the sexes and their respective common cancers pushes women to the wayside in terms of procedures that could help with early detection. Also common in the studies I reviewed was female authorship. In a patriarchy, this lacks ethos (credibility). Women talking about women is simply advocacy, not science to the extent of that conducted by male researchers. While this point is never addressed in media nor in the research, it can be inferred that this dichotomy is why insurance coverage of mammograms, age determination for starting the procedure and treatment for breast cancer has been relatively lagging in light of the statistics of breast cancer contraction and mortality. |
Breasts
There is a large emphasis on the breast aspect of women, which aligns the procedure of mammography with females. As I noted elsewhere, women as a rhetorical device allows leeway for second-class citizenry. The reduction of women to body parts - breasts - makes evaluation of their condition with regards to breast cancer a point of mere rationalist thought. Mammograms are a way of detecting cancer. No more, no less. However, male breasts are neglected in the context of the situation. In my research, I only came across male breast cancer stories with Susan G. Komen. Males, because of their lacking association with breasts, may be potential victims of a rhetoric focusing on women because of this body party. The inability for medical studies to part with social stigmas drives the conversation away from male breast cancer rates. This has large implications, including why mammograms are a point of debate with health insurance. Radiation
Linked to cancer, radiation exposure is a leading fear in mammogram opposition. Clinical breast exams, though lacking much research, are suggested from this side. In conjunction with these efforts, clinical breast exams are more likely to be covered readily by both medical practitioners (e.g., gynecologists) and health insurance because they do not require radiation. The lacking technology here is beneficial in saving money. |
Cancer
The "C" word is the ultimate point of fear in a society driven by eradicating itself of diseases and other life-threatening conditions. While cancer seems to have a lot of research done on it, it is one of the few things we as a species still do not fully understand. It is in this fear that the pro-mammogram argument gains the most strength. Cancer is associated with pain, illness, drastic life change and death. Because first-world societies are driven away from these phenomena (in my experience), it is a given that any and all research, procedures and treatments should be explored to eliminate cancer from the medical vocabulary. For mammogram supporters, this is an advantage because the context drives the debate in their favor. Mammograms have been proven to help prevent breast cancer development in astounding numbers. It is through that process that women's lives are saved. However, it is that exact same fear that drives women away from having them done. The oppositional force in the mammogram debate emphasizes the cancer risk posed by X-ray usage. Here, cancer becomes a detriment to mammogram advocacy because the crisis rhetoric outweighs the benefits for individuals subject to such an appeal to fear pathos. |
Ethical implications
Insurance - the money and politics
With all of the debate around cost, age limits, risk factors and types of screening and prevention, who is actually going to benefit from mammography? As was explored from media coverage surrounding the issue, insuring women for mammograms is up to private corporations at the moment. Implied in the passing of the Affordable Health Care Act is the ability to ensure that all mammograms are covered as per the recommendations established by federal agencies (e.g., USPTFS). So what could really happen?
Looking at the rhetoric on the table currently, it is likely that women will be insured for mammogram screenings starting at the age of 40. However, the risk factors included in determining some individuals' needs for earlier testing may become akin to the "pre-existing condition" clause commonly used by health insurance providers in denying coverage for certain medical problems and diseases. In this sense, women who are unable to afford mammograms earlier in their lives despite being "high risk" may develop breast cancer and go untreated until either a lump large enough to feel develops or they are eligible for insured mammogram screenings.
On the political front, incorporating women's health coverage into public insurance is a big goal. Mammograms are one of the topics covered by the ACA, according to various news reports. This asserts the federal government's position in providing for women the same coverage that is provided for men in similar arenas of medical care. On the other hand, the opposition experienced in recent weeks (i.e., the federal government shutdown, the Republican push back to Obamacare) shows a lacking concern for women in terms of health coverage. Though the rhetoric being tossed about has highlighted "socialism" and "private sector rights," the reflection of the involvement of real women in real circumstances speaks to the neglect of women in the political arena that has been witnessed for centuries. It is in this controversy that it seems feminism has lost its reach in the political arena. Ethically, this implies that without a redirection of the conversation to incorporate women and their medical needs, politicians are doing a disservice to that portion of society. It begs the question of how many more women will be allowed to die due to lacking coverage for breast cancer screening, including mammograms.
Death rates
Mammograms, as evidenced in the various studies dating back to the 1990s cited here, have been proven to help detect early stages of breast cancer with a success rate of decreased mortality rates due to these findings. In the approaches against mammograms, the rhetoric of fear is posed without a real solution. Cancer is cancer, and risking low-dose radiation should be looked at from individual perspectives. While not having mammograms performed can save women from this exposure, it also puts them at risk for natural development of breast cancer should there be other factors contributing to that potential. Discouraging screening, as well as neglecting research on alternative forms of testing (e.g., self-examination, clinical breast examination), contributes to a rhetoric of fear that has the potential to heighten mortality rates despite the usability of technology. Here, medical research in this field must be continued and broadened beyond the narrow scope presented on mammograms and breast cancer.
With all of the debate around cost, age limits, risk factors and types of screening and prevention, who is actually going to benefit from mammography? As was explored from media coverage surrounding the issue, insuring women for mammograms is up to private corporations at the moment. Implied in the passing of the Affordable Health Care Act is the ability to ensure that all mammograms are covered as per the recommendations established by federal agencies (e.g., USPTFS). So what could really happen?
Looking at the rhetoric on the table currently, it is likely that women will be insured for mammogram screenings starting at the age of 40. However, the risk factors included in determining some individuals' needs for earlier testing may become akin to the "pre-existing condition" clause commonly used by health insurance providers in denying coverage for certain medical problems and diseases. In this sense, women who are unable to afford mammograms earlier in their lives despite being "high risk" may develop breast cancer and go untreated until either a lump large enough to feel develops or they are eligible for insured mammogram screenings.
On the political front, incorporating women's health coverage into public insurance is a big goal. Mammograms are one of the topics covered by the ACA, according to various news reports. This asserts the federal government's position in providing for women the same coverage that is provided for men in similar arenas of medical care. On the other hand, the opposition experienced in recent weeks (i.e., the federal government shutdown, the Republican push back to Obamacare) shows a lacking concern for women in terms of health coverage. Though the rhetoric being tossed about has highlighted "socialism" and "private sector rights," the reflection of the involvement of real women in real circumstances speaks to the neglect of women in the political arena that has been witnessed for centuries. It is in this controversy that it seems feminism has lost its reach in the political arena. Ethically, this implies that without a redirection of the conversation to incorporate women and their medical needs, politicians are doing a disservice to that portion of society. It begs the question of how many more women will be allowed to die due to lacking coverage for breast cancer screening, including mammograms.
Death rates
Mammograms, as evidenced in the various studies dating back to the 1990s cited here, have been proven to help detect early stages of breast cancer with a success rate of decreased mortality rates due to these findings. In the approaches against mammograms, the rhetoric of fear is posed without a real solution. Cancer is cancer, and risking low-dose radiation should be looked at from individual perspectives. While not having mammograms performed can save women from this exposure, it also puts them at risk for natural development of breast cancer should there be other factors contributing to that potential. Discouraging screening, as well as neglecting research on alternative forms of testing (e.g., self-examination, clinical breast examination), contributes to a rhetoric of fear that has the potential to heighten mortality rates despite the usability of technology. Here, medical research in this field must be continued and broadened beyond the narrow scope presented on mammograms and breast cancer.
A feminist approach
Why being a woman is a problem
In a patriarchal society, women are still forced to take a backseat on many issues despite their overall social, political and economic strides. In terms of health insurance, women have generally been left out of the picture - this is evidenced in the Affordable Care Act where several members of Congress challenged the repeated use of "women" in the bill not recognizing that men are covered much more holistically in current provision. Furthermore, medical research on women is commonly conducted by women. Most of the research cited here was conducted and published by female practitioners and researchers. Rhetorically, this group has a lower appeal to ethos than a man conducting the same research simply because the patriarchy promotes the work of men over women in most fields, particularly those that have been traditionally male-dominated.
Just a body - the implications of scientific research as a whole
Associated with women, the body is an object and therefore should be regarded as such. It is a place of fixation and lacking pathological attachment. Science takes this to a new extreme in its narrowing of issues simply to the physical being. In the context of mammograms, tests that explore beyond the breast are on the brain as related to the procedure. This aligns women with two things: boobs and anxiety. Here, science fails to look at the big picture, choosing to focus on accumulating data that can be tied up into recommendations without considerations beyond statistics related to the goals of the test at hand (e.g., detecting breast cancer, detecting early formation, reducing mortality rates). Humanist approaches are rejected and neglected in favor of progress-driven rationalism. The body becomes a thing for analysis, and, for women, the fixation becomes on eradicating nature from taking its course in the body in order to obtain perfection.
Men and breast cancer
Though none of the studies I researched focused on men in any respect to the contraction of breast cancer, stories on the Susan G. Komen Website from men proved to be the contradiction to the assumed "fact" that only women can develop such cancer. Because the development of cancer is in the tissues - muscle and fat cells - the pectoral muscle is subject to cancerous development in both sexes. The de-emphasis of the role breast cancer plays in men's lives suggests that the problem is not as important as those directly linked to males. This cycles back to the issues associated with being a woman in the context of this debate.
In a patriarchal society, women are still forced to take a backseat on many issues despite their overall social, political and economic strides. In terms of health insurance, women have generally been left out of the picture - this is evidenced in the Affordable Care Act where several members of Congress challenged the repeated use of "women" in the bill not recognizing that men are covered much more holistically in current provision. Furthermore, medical research on women is commonly conducted by women. Most of the research cited here was conducted and published by female practitioners and researchers. Rhetorically, this group has a lower appeal to ethos than a man conducting the same research simply because the patriarchy promotes the work of men over women in most fields, particularly those that have been traditionally male-dominated.
Just a body - the implications of scientific research as a whole
Associated with women, the body is an object and therefore should be regarded as such. It is a place of fixation and lacking pathological attachment. Science takes this to a new extreme in its narrowing of issues simply to the physical being. In the context of mammograms, tests that explore beyond the breast are on the brain as related to the procedure. This aligns women with two things: boobs and anxiety. Here, science fails to look at the big picture, choosing to focus on accumulating data that can be tied up into recommendations without considerations beyond statistics related to the goals of the test at hand (e.g., detecting breast cancer, detecting early formation, reducing mortality rates). Humanist approaches are rejected and neglected in favor of progress-driven rationalism. The body becomes a thing for analysis, and, for women, the fixation becomes on eradicating nature from taking its course in the body in order to obtain perfection.
Men and breast cancer
Though none of the studies I researched focused on men in any respect to the contraction of breast cancer, stories on the Susan G. Komen Website from men proved to be the contradiction to the assumed "fact" that only women can develop such cancer. Because the development of cancer is in the tissues - muscle and fat cells - the pectoral muscle is subject to cancerous development in both sexes. The de-emphasis of the role breast cancer plays in men's lives suggests that the problem is not as important as those directly linked to males. This cycles back to the issues associated with being a woman in the context of this debate.