Why not ask Karen Nikkel of Quebec City, Canada that question. One of the most disturbing stories I came across while doing research for my special report and new book was in the book, "Patient No More" by Sharon Batt. She told the story of Karen who discovered that her mastectomy was based on a faulty diagnosis.
Now Karen successfully sued the surgeon, the pathologist and the hospital but that is no compensation for the agony and suffering that Karen and her family endured because of a wrong diagnosis.
Karen had what was called one-stage breast surgery, which was the norm up until the last twenty years. The doctor biopsied the suspicious lump, gave it to the pathologist, who did what is called a quick-frozen section. Sounding more like something you'd be looking for in the grocery store, the pathologists will do a quick-freeze on a section of the tumor and make an immediate decision as to whether or not there is cancer present. In Karen's case, while she was still on the operating table, the pathologist declared the tumor cancerous. A mastectomy was performed.
However, immediately after the mastectomy, tissue samples were sent to a nearby hospital for the permanent section. Within 48 hours, the doctors at the hospital learned that the samples were non-cancerous.
No one told Karen of the misdiagnosis. No, Karen lived with the agony of believing she was a breast cancer survivor for six years! She was so frightened of a recurrence that she considered a prophylactic mastectomy of her other breast. She had 3 reconstructive surgeries - her husband had had a vasectomy because he couldn't face having more children knowing his wife might die.
While in the doctor's office one day, the nurse left her file on the table. Karen looked through it and saw the letter that said she never had cancer.
How common is this situation? According to H. Gilbert Welch, author of "Should I Be Tested for Cancer", pathologists are very concerned about "missing" a cancer diagnosis. Fear of lawsuits is a prevailing factor. Consequently, they will often err on the side of caution and call it cancer, even when it's looking "iffy".
In a study done with pathologists, one third of the pathologists did not agree on the presence or absence of cancer in 24 different specimens. Overall there was a disagreement in roughly one-quarter of the breast biopsies.
As Dr. Welch explains, "pathologists can't look at every cell, nor can we expect them to accurately predict the outcome of a dynamic multi-step process based on a single static observation (a few cells under a microscope) The process of early cancer diagnoses is bound to be haphazard."
Haphazard is not a word I would want used in my cancer diagnosis, thank you very much. However, with early detection via mammography and biopsy being the norm for most women, haphazard may be more of an issue than women are led to believe. Mistakes are made. Serious ones. Just ask Karen Nikkel.
Now Karen successfully sued the surgeon, the pathologist and the hospital but that is no compensation for the agony and suffering that Karen and her family endured because of a wrong diagnosis.
Karen had what was called one-stage breast surgery, which was the norm up until the last twenty years. The doctor biopsied the suspicious lump, gave it to the pathologist, who did what is called a quick-frozen section. Sounding more like something you'd be looking for in the grocery store, the pathologists will do a quick-freeze on a section of the tumor and make an immediate decision as to whether or not there is cancer present. In Karen's case, while she was still on the operating table, the pathologist declared the tumor cancerous. A mastectomy was performed.
However, immediately after the mastectomy, tissue samples were sent to a nearby hospital for the permanent section. Within 48 hours, the doctors at the hospital learned that the samples were non-cancerous.
No one told Karen of the misdiagnosis. No, Karen lived with the agony of believing she was a breast cancer survivor for six years! She was so frightened of a recurrence that she considered a prophylactic mastectomy of her other breast. She had 3 reconstructive surgeries - her husband had had a vasectomy because he couldn't face having more children knowing his wife might die.
While in the doctor's office one day, the nurse left her file on the table. Karen looked through it and saw the letter that said she never had cancer.
How common is this situation? According to H. Gilbert Welch, author of "Should I Be Tested for Cancer", pathologists are very concerned about "missing" a cancer diagnosis. Fear of lawsuits is a prevailing factor. Consequently, they will often err on the side of caution and call it cancer, even when it's looking "iffy".
In a study done with pathologists, one third of the pathologists did not agree on the presence or absence of cancer in 24 different specimens. Overall there was a disagreement in roughly one-quarter of the breast biopsies.
As Dr. Welch explains, "pathologists can't look at every cell, nor can we expect them to accurately predict the outcome of a dynamic multi-step process based on a single static observation (a few cells under a microscope) The process of early cancer diagnoses is bound to be haphazard."
Haphazard is not a word I would want used in my cancer diagnosis, thank you very much. However, with early detection via mammography and biopsy being the norm for most women, haphazard may be more of an issue than women are led to believe. Mistakes are made. Serious ones. Just ask Karen Nikkel.
Jan Janzen is a breast health activist. A best selling author she has just released her fourth book Breast Health Exposed: 21 Secrets Most Doctors Will Never Tell You About Your Breasts. The book has been endorsed by medical doctors, naturopathic doctors and is already receiving rave reviews from women who know there is a better way. Jan says a woman dying of breast cancer every 12 minutes is absolutely needless and backs this up with 21 medically proven secrets.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jan_R_Janzen
No comments:
Post a Comment