There are few decisions, few things in life, which are “every single time, 100% guaranteed” right courses of action. Almost every decision has risks and benefits, upsides and downsides. That’s just the way things are.
It’s a no-brainer that seat-belts save lives, right? But they also may take lives in certain instances. A few years ago on Oprah, there was a family whose young daughter was decapitated by a seat belt when the vehicle crashed. My Grandma probably survived a wreck which totaled her car because she wasn’t wearing a lap belt. She ended up with a broken pelvis, but because she only had a shoulder belt on (one of those automatic seat belts that required manually latching the lap belt, which she did not do), when she pulled out into oncoming traffic, and the car smashed into her, she had enough leeway in the shoulder-belt that the force of the wreck pushed her out of her seat and towards the other side of the car instead of crushing her in the driver’s seat. But my father was undoubtedly killed in a car wreck because he did not wear his seat belt. On balance, seat belts save many more lives than they could possibly be blamed for taking.
Often, a certain decision will be the right or best course for the majority of people, although a minority might either be hurt or harmed in some way. The recent change in recommendation for mammograms is a perfect example of this. The new recommendation is that women younger than 50 not have mammograms at all, and that women 50-74 have mammograms only every other year. ACOG disagrees, finding fault with the science or method of study on which the new recommendation was founded, reiterating their support for annual mammograms for women aged 50-74, and annual or biennial mammograms for women in their 40s. [But we’ll say that ACOG is wrong, and the USPSTF is right, for the sake of argument.] The reasoning behind the new recommendations is that a lot of women are being exposed to a lot of radiation by way of mammograms; some cancers are not detected by these mammograms anyway; some cancers that are detected are slow-growing or are actually mild or not life- or health-threatening, but there is the urge to treat even these cancers aggressively, which may cause a lot of pain and suffering; many “false positives” (or other cancer “scares”) along with much unfounded fear is being endured by healthy women; and many healthy women are undergoing painful procedures such as biopsies (or even mastectomies) because of the test results which may be wrong or inconclusive.
The first news I had of the change in recommendation was from a Christian news source that was decrying the changes, pointing to the fact that there would be some younger women who would not have these breast X-rays done, who would actually have breast cancer, and would die since they did not get early detection nor early treatment. This news organization treated the recommendations in a negative light, taking the tone that women would die from following the new as opposed to the old recommendations, and that this was not right or good, because life is precious and valuable, so every effort should be made to conserve life. Macro vs. micro — the big picture vs. the small picture. Yes, it’s possible, perhaps even probable, that a few women in their 40s might die from breast cancer that might have been detected and treated earlier, were they to have regular mammograms. But there are women who come down with breast cancer in their 30s — why not screen all 30-year-olds as well? Is it not possible for women even in their 20s to get breast cancer — why not screen them as well? Are their lives not worth saving? Is not their life as valuable?
But at what cost? How many women might be exposed to enough radiation from mammograms as to give them fatal cancer? How many women are going to be given life-altering mastectomies (particularly unnecessarily)? At what point do the above negatives and risks outweigh the positives?
A similar argument was made some time ago on some birth blog, in which the blogger pointed out that if such-and-such recommendations were carried out, something like 38,000 women would have to have a C-section in order to save the life of one baby under X circumstances or with X disease. Naturally, a woman whose baby had that condition responded (not very happy), because she took the statement to mean that the blogger was saying that her child wasn’t worth the sacrifice. Obviously, that’s not what anybody was saying. That statement was not intended to be personal — a “micro” look, but rather a “macro” look at the broad situation… but it was personal to that particular woman, because she was affected personally by it.That’s the “little” picture.
The big picture is looking at groups of people who will be affected by a certain policy or procedure. Mammographies for all women which will greatly increase milder negative outcomes (the pain of the procedure, the costs involved, the false positives, etc.) and potentially slightly increase the major negative outcomes (increased risk of cancer, etc.) vs. mammographies for fewer women, knowing that a tiny percentage of women will be severely adversely affected. As soon as the recommendations came out, women who had breast cancer at a young age came out of the woodwork to tell their stories of early detection and treatment which saved their lives. These stories are obviously compelling. But equally compelling would be stories of women who endured the hell of a false diagnosis, going through (perhaps) unnecessary mastectomies and chemotherapy with months of sickness and recovery time, and believing they were going to die, or worse, actually dying from a complication of an unnecessary surgery, or dying from an infection due to being in a weakened state from chemotherapy.
The point of these types of discussions is not to say that one person’s life or health is more valuable than another’s; but just to try to figure out what is best for the population as a whole. In the above example of “38,000 C-sections to save the life of one baby” — there is a cost involved in 38,000 C-sections — certainly a monetary cost, but also a cost in the lives and health of the women undergoing C-sections, as any major surgery has potentially fatal complications both in the short-term and the long-term; plus long-term health implications for the mother and potentially fatal complications for future babies. Recently on some blog, I read about a woman who died several years following a C-section, as a result of the C-section, due to some sort of bowel problem. Adhesions are a common problem after any surgery including C-sections, and they may cause bowel and other problems (including pain, sometimes severe); and C-sections certainly increase the risk of future complications to the mother and any future pregnancy she has, with the risk increasing exponentially with every additional C-section. I remember reading some time ago (though perhaps not in a medical journal or study) that the typical rate of maternal mortality associated with a vaginal birth is somewhere around 2/100,000, while the mortality rate associated with C-section is either 5 or 6 times that. Assuming that these facts are correct, the MMR for C-sections is 10-12/100,000, or about 1/10,000. So, if 38,000 C-sections are necessary to save the life of one baby (in that example), it may be that 3-4 women would die. Plus, 38,000 women would be put at risk of future complications that may threaten or take their life, or they may have a problem in a future pregnancy that could take the life of that baby, or themselves. For instance, the risk of placental problems like accreta or increta or placenta previa (and possibly placental abruption, but I can’t remember off the top of my head) increases with a single C-section and increases exponentially with every additional C-section. With placenta accreta or increta, the placenta grows into or through the wall of the uterus, often necessitating a hysterectomy; and all of these placental problems increase the risk of maternal blood loss, which can be problematic and even potentially life-threatening if steps are not quickly taken. Rare, perhaps, but possible. While the woman in the above case could say that it would certainly be worth 38,000 C-sections to save the life of her baby… is that what is really best for the population as a whole? We save the life of one baby, but take the lives of 3 women within 6 weeks of the birth; plus potentially more, years down the road, either as a direct result of the surgery like the woman with bowel problems, or indirectly like a future pregnancy problem due to a uterine scar; plus rob many other women of their possibility of future childbearing (increased risk of hysterectomy); plus the increased risk of miscarriage and fetal death due to a scarred uterus. And there is evidence to suggest that babies born by C-section unnecessarily (which would be the case in 37,999 C-sections, in this example), are more likely to have problems such as more NICU admissions, longer NICU stays, increased risk of childhood asthma, etc. Some people point the finger at C-sections for a whole boat-load of problems including things like an increased risk of learning disabilities, autism, etc., but I don’t know if that is necessarily accurate. What if 1% of babies born by unnecesarean have asthma that they wouldn’t have had, had they been born vaginally; and of that number, 1% will have such severe asthma that they will likely die from an asthma attack (or some sort of lung infection, or something) before they reach the age of 5 or 10? That’s a small number, but it’s still 3-4 children, which is far more than the number of babies saved (1) due to the level of unnecessary C-sections (38,000). And if the rate of these other complications (some life-threatening; others not) is also increased, then you have a higher health and potentially a higher life cost as a result of trying to save the life of that one baby.
Is that one baby not worth saving? Most certainly! Every baby is worth saving! Every life should be saved if possible. But… it’s not always possible, and sometimes there are unintended consequences. I’m not arguing that some lives are worth more than others; or that some people should be allowed to die so that others can live. But I’m pointing out the necessary problems that occur when you look at only one side of the equation and not the other. If there were no “human costs” involved in mammography (increased radiation, false negatives, unnecessary painful biopsies, etc.), then I would not necessarily have a problem were there to be a recommendation to screen every woman from the age of 16 or 18 or whatever. It certainly wouldn’t be “cost effective” — there would undoubtedly be millions or billions of dollars spent on mammograms to find 1 woman in her 20s and 3 women in their 30s and 100 women in their 40s who had cancer and save them. If there were no human costs involved in a C-section, it would likewise be not “cost effective” but still worth doing if it would save lives. I’m frugal, but you can’t put a cost on human life (although “bean counters” make a pretty good effort at it!). However, it is possible, as I pointed out in my above example, for there to be more lives lost by a “conservative approach” and an attempt to save every life, than there will be lives gained. This is not to diminish the value of the life lost; but to place a value on all lives.
Looking only at the “little picture,” you see that some lives will undoubtedly be lost by following one approach, and most people (including myself) draw back in horror at the thought of callously saying, “Eh… big deal — one life — it doesn’t matter.” No — that life is valuable too! But looking at the “big picture,” you see that — as things stand now — there may be a much higher cost in both human life and health, in attempting to save every life that is threatened by a certain disease or anomaly. There are still plenty of situations where there are risks and benefits both of action and non-action. We can say (sometimes) which is better in the big picture; but that does not mean that by following “the safest route for most” that everyone will be saved. Just like there are instances in which seat-belts actually take lives, instead of saving them.
In the case of a 37-year-old woman who dies of breast cancer, we can say, “If she had just had a mammogram, it might have been caught in time,” and that might be true. But for every younger woman whose life might be saved, it’s possible that two other lives would be lost and ten or a hundred or a thousand might undergo painful and unnecessary procedures — procedures which might end up harming her health and well-being for the rest of her life. And these women’s lives and health are also important.
To sum up, this is why informed consent and patient choice is so important. You don’t want a person coming back and saying, “If I had only known that that was a possibility, I would have made a different choice”; nor do you want someone coming back and saying, “I was forced to undergo a C-section, or I was not allowed to choose a C-section, and look what happened.” Although these recommendations on mammography have been made, younger women can still choose to have mammograms, if they want to, so if they want to expose themselves to the risks which the USPSTF has said are unnecessary, nobody’s stopping them. But we also need to keep trying to further refine our technology and procedures and knowledge so that we can reduce the number of unnecessary procedures while maximizing the number of lives saved. For instance, fingerprint patterns can indicate a higher risk of developing breast cancer, with no exposure to radiation. Maybe other advances will be made in the near future, that will reduce the risks, but keep the benefits.