Letter: Screening much improved
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Letter: Screening much improved
Sir: Cervical screening is the best and indeed the only way of detecting pre-cancer in a woman's cervix and of providing early and potentially life-saving treatment.
I share some of Dr Phil Hammond's concerns (column, 18 March) about the way that cervical screening was introduced in the 1960s and developed over the next 20 years. Fortunately, the cervical screening programme of today is a much improved model.
In 1988, the programme was reorganised and there are now national standards which everyone who works in cervical screening must meet and a quality assurance system to make sure they do.
Since 1988 the fall in the mortality rate, which had been running at 1 or 2 per cent a year, has risen to around 7 per cent every year. And an audit by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the NHS programme has shown that screening prevented nearly half the potential cases of cervical cancer in 1992.
It is true that for every woman whose life we save by detecting and treating a pre-cancerous condition that would have become cancer there are several women who are made anxious - however carefully we phrase the letter - by the news that they have abnormal results. This happens in every screening programme.
The important question - as Dr Hammond identifies - is "does the benefit in terms of lives saved outweigh the anxiety which may be caused to many women?" I believe that most women would answer with a resounding "yes".
JULIETTA PATNICK
National Co-ordinator
NHS Cervical Screening Programme
Sheffield
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments