home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=93TT0423>
- <title>
- Nov. 01, 1993: Breast-Cancer Politics
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1993
- Nov. 01, 1993 Howard Stern & Rush Limbaugh
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- MEDICINE, Page 74
- Breast-Cancer Politics
- </hdr>
- <body>
- <p>Heavy lobbying brings more money to find a cure, but will the
- research dollars be well spent?
- </p>
- <p>By CHRISTINE GORMAN--Reported by Janice M. Horowitz/New York
- </p>
- <p> One thousand strong they marched on the Ellipse near the White
- House, mostly women but some men as well, wearing small pink
- ribbons and waving large angry signs. They came to Washington
- last week to deliver a message to the President and the nation:
- breast cancer will strike at least 1 of every 9 women, so put
- more money into stopping the epidemic. Organized by the National
- Breast Cancer Coalition, a grass-roots movement with 70,000
- members, the rally produced a quick response. During a meeting
- between the group's leaders and Bill and Hillary Clinton, the
- President pledged to draw up a "national action plan" for preventing,
- diagnosing and treating the disease.
- </p>
- <p> Following the successful strategy of the red-ribboned AIDS lobby,
- breast-cancer victims and their supporters have become a powerful
- political force over the past year. The National Cancer Institute
- plans to spend $263 million in 1994 combatting the disease,
- 34% more than in 1993. But while the government's commitment
- is growing, setting a rational breast-cancer policy is becoming
- problematic. Controversy rages over what is a reasonable amount
- of money to spend and how it should be spent.
- </p>
- <p> Even as Clinton was meeting with protesters and proclaiming
- the next day (Oct. 19) to be National Mammography Day, a dispute
- was erupting over the government's attitude toward the X-ray
- tests that are the best means of detecting a breast cancer before
- it becomes incurable. NCI was considering making a new recommendation:
- women in their 40s should no longer be given routine mammograms
- unless there is some reason, like a family history of the disease,
- to suspect a higher-than-normal risk. While studies have proved
- the value of the test in women 50 and older, the available research
- suggests that mammograms in younger women do not spot tumors
- well enough to produce a significant drop in the breast-cancer
- death rate. Many women's groups reacted angrily, arguing that
- not enough research had been done to reach such a conclusion.
- Just when women are getting into the mammogram habit, complained
- NCI's critics, the government is sending out a confusing message
- about the test.
- </p>
- <p> The demands of breast-cancer lobbyists are growing even though
- the disease receives more government funds than other forms
- of malignancy, including lung cancer, which kills more women
- each year. One justification is that while the causes of lung
- cancer (chiefly smoking) are well understood, the causes of
- breast cancer (diet, genetic makeup or exposure to pollutants?)
- are still mysterious. Even so, no one can guarantee that more
- money will bring a quicker cure. "People say that the money
- will save lives, but that's not necessarily true," says Ann
- Flood, a sociologist at Dartmouth Medical School. "It's not
- like we are close to brand-new information that would benefit
- from such funds."
- </p>
- <p> Or maybe we are. Researchers report in the current Nature Genetics
- that they may have isolated a gene linked to hereditary forms
- of breast cancer. If confirmed, the results could help lead
- to a better understanding of the disease--and more effective
- weapons against it.
- </p>
-
- </body>
- </article>
- </text>
-
-