Why I'm saying no to a smear

Dr Margaret McCartney is a GP. Yet she refuses cervical and breast cancer screening and hasn't measured her cholesterol. She explains her reasons

Renew travel card. Book haircut. Go for screening test. Buy cinema tickets. Meet friends." You may have spotted the odd one out – for this is not a list of things to do at the weekend, but the front cover of the NHS Scotland's "Cervical Screening Test" information booklet.

Here's a confession. I am a GP, and I don't go for cervical smears. Nor do I know what my cholesterol level is, and when I reach 50 and am invited to mammography screening, I won't be turning up. I haven't decided about bowel-cancer screening, but at the moment, on the evidence, I'm unconvinced.

Why? Part of the problem is the trivialisation of the choices that are offered to us when it comes to screening tests. It's important to be clear – screening tests are for people who are well and who have no symptoms for disease. So if you have bleeding between periods, or a change in your bowel habit, you don't need screening tests – you need diagnostic tests.

Screening tests are different. Because they aim to find disease you don't know about, the trade-off between benefits and harms tends to be more nuanced compared with tests done to investigate symptoms. Cervical screening does prevent deaths from cervical cancer. But to get that reduction, you have to follow up and/or treat all the women who have cell changes on their screening test. However, most cervical-cell changes found at screening will not lead to cervical cancer. The problem is we can't predict which will, so all need further monitoring or treatment. A study from Bristol in 2003 found that 1,000 women have to be screened for 35 years to prevent one death from cervical cancer; and to prevent that death, 80 women have to have further investigation, with 50 women having treatment to their cervices. Four out of five women found at screening to have "high-grade" changes in their cervix did not go on to develop invasive cancer.

Clearly, there is a benefit – but overall, it's small. That potential for good has to be weighed against the risks of treatment. It's known that having a cervical biopsy – which is done to get more information about the degree of abnormality – raises the risk of pre-term birth in later pregnancies. And the worry and anxiety that the results cause shouldn't be underestimated.

I'm not against screening, but I am against unthinking screening. I weighed up my personal risk factors for cervical screening (for example, smoking is a risk factor), threw in my own priorities – and decided not to have it. And here's the problem. The NHS persists in sending me red-ink letters despite my written declaration to opt out. I'm made to feel a risk-taker in not having cervical screening – yet I'd also be taking my chances if I had it done.

This is at the heart of the screening problem. Most information sent to us, as potential participants, doesn't make clear that it's a personal choice, and a balance of pros and cons. We can end up being screened without knowing that it was an option, not a foregone conclusion. This is important because it's apparent from research studies that when people get balanced information about screening tests, fewer people want them. Take the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test for prostate cancer screening. When it's explained that it can't distinguish a killer cancer from a "cancer" that behaves benignly, more men opt out – the treatment can lead to impotence and incontinence, and there is no guarantee that PSA screening saves lives. The same goes for bowel-cancer screening; the better the information people are given about their chances of benefit and risk of side effects from screening, the fewer want it.

Yet the screening establishment tends to think that people who don't have their prescribed screening tests are more likely disorganised, feckless or ignorant. The truth is quite different. I've elected not to know my cholesterol level because it's just one cardiovascular risk factor among many others that I can control better – such as with exercise and diet. For someone without cardiovascular disease, there's around a one-in-60 chance of avoiding a heart attack by taking cholesterol-lowering statins for five years. But there is also a one-in-167 chance of developing diabetes because of the drugs. I'd rather not take tablets for the rest of my life with this balance of risks. As for breast screening, we know that if you screen 2,000 women for 10 years, one will have her life prolonged because of it. But to get this benefit, 10 other women will have treatment for breast cancer unnecessarily – when their cancer would never have affected their lifespan. When I put this in context with my own personal risk factors and preferences, I can't see myself signing up.

Of course, all this pales beside the many screening tests in the private sector – from CT scans of vital organs to ultrasounds of the neck and ECGs of the heart. Within the NHS, the UK National Screening Committee diligently researches the benefits and risks of screening. In the private sector, there's no such quality control. And false positives can mean invasive tests are done to get biopsies, themselves risking harm. Are we even sure what "normal" is? We know that about 10 per cent of well people have abnormalities on their brain scans – including aneurysms and benign tumours. Clearly, most of these "abnormalities" mean very little – 10 per cent of the population don't die of these "problems". Screening can throw up all sorts of unanticipated problems; shouldn't we know this before stepping into a scanner?

Many people who endure side effects from screening tests are willing to put up with them because they believe they have been saved by them. I'd be willing to bet that if more people understood the fine balance of risks screening offers, there would be less screening – and more anger. To me, the failure of medicine to explain the pros and cons, and the need to make a properly informed screening choice, is scandalous and unsustainable. But it's potential patients who need to object loudest of all.

'The Patient Paradox: Why Sexed-up Medicine Is Bad for Your Health', by Margaret McCartney, is published by Pinter & Martin (£9.99)

Suggested Topics
News
A poster by Durham Constabulary
news
Arts and Entertainment
books New York Times slammed over summer reading list
Sport
Cameron Jerome
footballCanaries beat Boro to gain promotion to the Premier League
Arts and Entertainment
Performers drink tea at the Glastonbury festival in 2010
music
Life and Style
ebookNow available in paperback
Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?

ES Rentals

    Independent Dating
    and  

    By clicking 'Search' you
    are agreeing to our
    Terms of Use.

    iJobs Job Widget
    iJobs General

    Guru Careers: Software Developer / C# Developer

    £40-50K: Guru Careers: We are seeking an experienced Software / C# Developer w...

    Guru Careers: Software Developer

    £35 - 40k + Benefits: Guru Careers: We are seeking a Software Developer (JavaS...

    SThree: Trainee Recruitment Consultant / Resourcer

    £18000 - £23000 per annum + Commission: SThree: As a Trainee Recruitment Consu...

    Ashdown Group: UI Developer - (UI, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, AngularJS)

    £25000 - £40000 per annum: Ashdown Group: UI Developer - (UI, JavaScript, HTML...

    Day In a Page

    Abuse - and the hell that came afterwards

    Abuse - and the hell that follows

    James Rhodes on the extraordinary legal battle to publish his memoir
    Why we need a 'tranquility map' of England, according to campaigners

    It's oh so quiet!

    The case for a 'tranquility map' of England
    'Timeless fashion': It may be a paradox, but the industry loves it

    'Timeless fashion'

    It may be a paradox, but the industry loves it
    If the West needs a bridge to the 'moderates' inside Isis, maybe we could have done with Osama bin Laden staying alive after all

    Could have done with Osama bin Laden staying alive?

    Robert Fisk on the Fountainheads of World Evil in 2011 - and 2015
    New exhibition celebrates the evolution of swimwear

    Evolution of swimwear

    From bathing dresses in the twenties to modern bikinis
    Sun, sex and an anthropological study: One British academic's summer of hell in Magaluf

    Sun, sex and an anthropological study

    One academic’s summer of hell in Magaluf
    From Shakespeare to Rising Damp... to Vicious

    Frances de la Tour's 50-year triumph

    'Rising Damp' brought De la Tour such recognition that she could be forgiven if she'd never been able to move on. But at 70, she continues to flourish - and to beguile
    'That Whitsun, I was late getting away...'

    Ian McMillan on the Whitsun Weddings

    This weekend is Whitsun, and while the festival may no longer resonate, Larkin's best-loved poem, lives on - along with the train journey at the heart of it
    Kathryn Williams explores the works and influences of Sylvia Plath in a new light

    Songs from the bell jar

    Kathryn Williams explores the works and influences of Sylvia Plath
    How one man's day in high heels showed him that Cannes must change its 'no flats' policy

    One man's day in high heels

    ...showed him that Cannes must change its 'flats' policy
    Is a quiet crusade to reform executive pay bearing fruit?

    Is a quiet crusade to reform executive pay bearing fruit?

    Dominic Rossi of Fidelity says his pressure on business to control rewards is working. But why aren’t other fund managers helping?
    The King David Hotel gives precious work to Palestinians - unless peace talks are on

    King David Hotel: Palestinians not included

    The King David is special to Jerusalem. Nick Kochan checked in and discovered it has some special arrangements, too
    More people moving from Australia to New Zealand than in the other direction for first time in 24 years

    End of the Aussie brain drain

    More people moving from Australia to New Zealand than in the other direction for first time in 24 years
    Meditation is touted as a cure for mental instability but can it actually be bad for you?

    Can meditation be bad for you?

    Researching a mass murder, Dr Miguel Farias discovered that, far from bringing inner peace, meditation can leave devotees in pieces
    Eurovision 2015: Australians will be cheering on their first-ever entrant this Saturday

    Australia's first-ever Eurovision entrant

    Australia, a nation of kitsch-worshippers, has always loved the Eurovision Song Contest. Maggie Alderson says it'll fit in fine