'Mammograms hurt' column draws ire -- OrlandoSentinel.com

I had 3 mammograms so far and the last one was the more painful of all. It hurt so much and yes I got a bruise. The female nurse didn't stop it when I wanted to and told me she would get a better picture if it squeeze a little more. She told me that I would'nt bruise! Very very painful and I can usually endure pain.
I wonder if it does something to the tissue inside your breast?

Wonder wrote:

I had 3 mammograms so far and the last one was the more painful of all. It hurt so much and yes I got a bruise. The female nurse didn't stop it when I wanted to and told me she would get a better picture if it squeeze a little more. She told me that I would'nt bruise! Very very painful and I can usually endure pain.
I wonder if it does something to the tissue inside your breast?

A bruise is a bruise. Bruises don't cause cancer, if that's what you mean.

the more I read the more confused I get. I had only one mamm many years ago, and it was very uncomfortable and felt some pain for about a week. My doctor sent me to get another mamm done as she recons that I'm a high risk because of my family history.(My mom had ovarian cancer, but at very old age, everybody else in my family is very healthy). I'm not concerned so much about the pain, but more about the damage that so many doctors, scientists say. Radiation for start the pressure they put on the breast which can cause the spreading of the cells. Nobody can actually confirm for 100% that mamm is safe and studies don't show much difference in moral rate either. So you really have to question which is the bigger risk, having a mamm done or having an alternative solution to it.
How about just having an ultrasound and thermal imaging? And maybe an MRI?
I haven't made up my mind, I still have about a month, that how long you have to wait here for mammography.

read this article:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033903_mammograms_...

wouldn't this make you think twice before going through a medieval torture?

vivi wrote:

read this article:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033903_mammograms_...
wouldn't this make you think twice before going through a medieval torture?

no it would NOT, because your source is not scientifically valid. It's so easy to think up scary things.

PLEASE women -- if you read something like this and it alarms you, print it out and take it to your doctor so you can get the REAL truth.

IF your familial history or genetics puts you at high risk of breast cancer, and you start getting mammograms earlier, there WILL be an increase in cancer -- because it will be found EARLIER -- at a point where it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to spread throughout your body and kill you.

That's what the difference in the studies cited indicated: that mammograms CAN find early cancers.

Man, that's what you want if you have a genetic trend in your family (such as mine -- me, my mother, my grandmother AND my great-grandmother).

And I'm supposed to tell my daughters not to be aggressively looking for it? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!!!!

Early detection saves lives. The researchers don't know that the women in that research don't have breast cancer. They don't have FOUND breast cancer. Most of the time by the time you can feel a lump, it's been there for quite some time -- sometimes 10 years if it's a slow-growing type.

My mother was EXTREMELY lucky. Hers developed close to the surface and she felt it while bathing. My grandmother was not so lucky.

Don't be confused by a website that cites itself as a source (what they did on the link above). Don't be confused by a site that gives out alarming results but that doesn't cite the research properly so you can't go double-check it yourself.

Take it to your doctor, who can find that research very carefully.

You know what your doctor will tell you? That the people at "naturalnews" DON'T KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET RESEARCH and came up with conclusions of their own -- conclusions that encourage people to believe that THEY have the 'real' truth. Why?

To sell you stuff. Be careful.

vivi wrote:

read this article:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033903_mammograms_...
wouldn't this make you think twice before going through a medieval torture?

I just tried to find objective information about breast thermal imaging. I found numerous sites put up by the manufacturer saying how great it is. When I finally found a site that was not put up by that company, here is what it said:

"I’ve actually been meaning to write about thermography, the dubious claims made for it with regard to breast cancer, and the even more dubious ways that it’s marketed to women."

As for ultrasound, it is not intended to examine the entire breast. An ultrasound is used to examine a particular, suspicious site.

Breast MRI is an option for some women, but it's not established as a first-line screening test, and few if any insurance companies will pay for it for that use. It's not non-invasive. You have to be injected with a specific dye. I happen to be allergic to that dye (the only way to find out is to have the MRI and react badly to the dye). If I HAD to have it again all sorts of safety precautions would have to be in place, and it would have to be done in a place that's crash-cart ready. With that kind of thing thanks, but I'll just go from the ultrasound to a biopsy. I'd insist on a biopsy anyway if they found the slightest suspicious thing.

Having a mammogram does NOT cause cancer cells to spread. The actual mechanism for spread is 100% biological and quite complex. It's not like squeezing a pimple.

None for me. Bumps.

Wonder wrote:

I had 3 mammograms so far and the last one was the more painful of all. It hurt so much and yes I got a bruise. The female nurse didn't stop it when I wanted to and told me she would get a better picture if it squeeze a little more. She told me that I would'nt bruise! Very very painful and I can usually endure pain.
I wonder if it does something to the tissue inside your breast?

I know this is an old post but I just happened on it and it hit one of my hot buttons. The person who did your mammogram was NOT a nurse!!!! She was a tech. "Nurse" is a protected title and must be earned by graduating from an accredited nursing school or college, then passing a licensing exam known as NCLEX. Everyone in a hospital or doctor's office is not a nurse. Check name tags. If they don't identify the wearer's credentials, ASK. And if you find techs, medical assistants or anyone else calling themselves nurses, remind them that it is a protected title and that presenting oneself as a nurse is against the law unless you have a NURSING license.

I just had a mammogram last week. I asked the tech to not squeeze too hard, and she said the magic words:

"It's not necessary with a digital mammogram."

So make sure where you go they have up-to-date technology and then stand your ground. You can also stop the mammogram just by blocking your breast with your hand. Insist on a more comfortable mammogram.

I had my second mammogram today. I'm 38 - my last one was in 2009. I remember that one being particularly painful. So this time, I took Aleve a few hours ahead of time, and made sure I timed the mammogram at a good place in my cycle.

It was excruciating. While some of you might not have had painful mammograms before, considering yourself lucky, but do not discount the experiences of others. I have had numerous surgeries, including a full c-section, sinus surgery and even my tailbone removed after breaking it in a skiing accident. I have a high tolerance for pain. The pain of this mammogram was absolutely excruciating in comparison. The tech kept lowering the compression plates tighter and tighter and tears were streaming down my face. And to have to undergo that torture four separate times! Twice on each breast!

It's now ten hours after the mammogram, and my left breast is burning in pain and both breasts are bruised. I've taken a prescription Anaprox to no effect, and been icing.

This procedure is barbaric and for some of us, it remains painful and traumatic. I do not have large breasts; I have an A/B cup, fairly sagging breasts (from significant weight loss years ago). It is not just an affliction of the large-breasted. It affects us all.

And telling women to "suck it up" or "just deal" because it isn't so bad says to me you women have no idea what we're experiencing. So drop the patronizing attitude.

Alexis was it digital? They told me where I get mine that there's no need for digital mammograms to hurt.

my last two mammograms hurt slightly, but it wasn't unbearable, but yesterday it was VERY painful. However, it wasn't the worst pain I ever felt in my life...I made it to the last image, but guess what, I passed out. I didn't have time to warn my technician as I fainted FAST. Knocked my head on the cement floor good and didn't come to for awhile, they had me on oxygen, took an EKG, blood tests, blood sugar was normal, blood test normal, EKG normal...end result, although my blood-pressure was extremely low, it returned to normal after I rested. I have a concussion, but thankfully no skull fracture (they took x-rays). I do have a bump on my head that measures 8cm in diameter, but it is slowly going down. I am still recovering, but they were able to send me home. I am still dizzy today when I make sudden movements so I am taking it easy. The point of me writing this is NOT to scare people off from getting a mammogram. I think they are VITAL. However, I think I will ask for an ultra sound next time (as they wind up having to do this each time anyway as my breasts are dense 38D) Anyhow, I don't like how some people who have posted discount others pain as if they are "wimps". That is only hurtful to those who have experienced the pain. I am hoping these newer machines will be less painful, or technicians are better trained. IF I have to get a mammogram again I will warn them that I fainted last time and see how they prepare for that. Maybe taking Advil or Aleve prior to the test might take away some of the pain.??? Just hoping someone invents a machine that doesn't have to squeeze the life out of my breasts. UGH Someone get on that please.

just me 45 wrote:

my last two mammograms hurt slightly, but it wasn't unbearable, but yesterday it was VERY painful. However, it wasn't the worst pain I ever felt in my life...I made it to the last image, but guess what, I passed out. I didn't have time to warn my technician as I fainted FAST. Knocked my head on the cement floor good and didn't come to for awhile, they had me on oxygen, took an EKG, blood tests, blood sugar was normal, blood test normal, EKG normal...end result, although my blood-pressure was extremely low, it returned to normal after I rested. I have a concussion, but thankfully no skull fracture (they took x-rays). I do have a bump on my head that measures 8cm in diameter, but it is slowly going down. I am still recovering, but they were able to send me home. I am still dizzy today when I make sudden movements so I am taking it easy. The point of me writing this is NOT to scare people off from getting a mammogram. I think they are VITAL. However, I think I will ask for an ultra sound next time (as they wind up having to do this each time anyway as my breasts are dense 38D) Anyhow, I don't like how some people who have posted discount others pain as if they are "wimps". That is only hurtful to those who have experienced the pain. I am hoping these newer machines will be less painful, or technicians are better trained. IF I have to get a mammogram again I will warn them that I fainted last time and see how they prepare for that. Maybe taking Advil or Aleve prior to the test might take away some of the pain.??? Just hoping someone invents a machine that doesn't have to squeeze the life out of my breasts. UGH Someone get on that please.

Ultrasounds target specific areas of the breast and cannot be used as a substitute for mammograms.

But you could look into MRI's as an option.

i thought i was pretty much the only one to think it hurt.
i was told that once a mamo detects cancer - its been in ur body for at least 10 yrs.

PFfff first of all that's not true. SOME cancers are very slow growing and you'll get lucky and get away with skipping s mammo or two.

Some are very FAST growing, like mine, and delaying would have killed me.

Thinking that way is nothing more than Russian roulette.

Gail Perry wrote:

PFfff first of all that's not true. SOME cancers are very slow growing and you'll get lucky and get away with skipping s mammo or two.
Some are very FAST growing, like mine, and delaying would have killed me.
Thinking that way is nothing more than Russian roulette.

yes i know. russian roulette is exactly what it is. sadly and unfortunately we tend to think it wont happen to us.
i dont know why that is either..

i hope u are well now.
:)

PFfff wrote:

<quoted text>
yes i know. russian roulette is exactly what it is. sadly and unfortunately we tend to think it wont happen to us.
i dont know why that is either..
i hope u are well now.
:)

]

Thanks, PF -- it has been six years and I am fine. I have been able to convince one of my daughters to go very light on the alcohol, but my other daughter is a beer connoseur (SP) and while not a heavy drinker she is a social drinker. I had the type that makes alcohol a bad idea, and several generations of women in my family now have had breast cancer. However, my sister didn't get it so far (and she's 69) so maybe my daughters will be lucky.

Gail Perry wrote:

<quoted text>
]
Thanks, PF -- it has been six years and I am fine. I have been able to convince one of my daughters to go very light on the alcohol, but my other daughter is a beer connoseur (SP) and while not a heavy drinker she is a social drinker. I had the type that makes alcohol a bad idea, and several generations of women in my family now have had breast cancer. However, my sister didn't get it so far (and she's 69) so maybe my daughters will be lucky.

so ur saying u think breast cancer is from alcohol?
seriously???

I really dont know what causes it, but i dont think its only one thing and probably more like heridity.
but i dont know - and i dont think doctors know what causes cancer (any kind of cancer) and i dont think they will ever find a cure because i think theres much more profit - to Not find a cure.

PFfff wrote:

<quoted text>
so ur saying u think breast cancer is from alcohol?
seriously???
I really dont know what causes it, but i dont think its only one thing and probably more like heridity.
but i dont know - and i dont think doctors know what causes cancer (any kind of cancer) and i dont think they will ever find a cure because i think theres much more profit - to Not find a cure.

I didn't say that.

What the RESEARCH says is that even one drink a day can contribute to the growth of one type of breast cancer -- hormone sensitive breast cancer. That's what I had, so I rarely drink. I didn't drink much before because I just couldn't afford the calories but now I really think three times. However, I do have an occasional glass of wine.

I completely disagree that any doctor I have ever met would prefer profits to a cure. Yes, they make a lot of money, but they earn it.

There will never be "a" cure to "cancer" because cancer is just a TYPE of disease. There are thousands of different kinds. Each one has its own treatment in one way or another. They won't "cure" "breast cancer" tomorrow but maybe they'll find a cure -- or even better, a prevention, for one subtype. Then they can start on the next subtype.

Saying you have cancer is like saying you have heart or lung disease. There are many kinds of heart and lung diseases with many different causes and many different solutions.

For those with a history of hormone sensitive breast cancer, they're much better off not drinking.