The end of pelvic exams?

[SoonerTexan]

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...-results/?_r=0

Saw this linked somewhere. I've never heard this come up before--thoughts?

Personally, I'd rather go through the inconvenience and know I was okay.

[Sheherezade]

DH recommends (to me) screening every 3-5 years since I am low risk for cervical cancer. He does see a lot of referrals for things that he knows are benign before any workup. People are distressed when they call him, obviously, so maybe there is some truth to that. Still, I think as a patient - and this is just me speculating - I'd rather risk a little distress and have it all turn out to be nothing than not have exams at all because they can lead to distress in for something that's ultimately benign.

I am disturbed that so many docs would think pelvics screen effectively for ovarian cancer. I don't believe that stat. Also, screening a woman with no uterus or ovaries yearly is totally whack. People are just going through the motions then without any thought - and that should stop.

[Vanquisher]

I haven't had a screening in a while. I'm monogamous and have been forever. I've never had an abnormal pap. And, I have no uterus. I do not have a family history of gynecological cancers. I literally have to spell it out every times I go to my doctor. I do not see an OB/Gyn at all anymore. I have no cervix for you to scrape. Sure, you could to a bimanual ovarian exam, but ugh.

Even when I did have all my parts, I thought the screenings for really low risk women were a bit much. Maybe I'm being naive and flippant though. Certainly, anyone with different circumstances (not monogamous, history of abnormal paps, family history of ovarian cancer, etc.) should be screened.

[SoonerTexan]

Interesting!

How do you feel about exams for teens and young women? I didn't go for an annual until a few months after I was married at 22 years old. Some people seem to think that is really late, but I wasn't sexually active until then, didn't have any family history of gynecological problems, and didn't have any past or current "lady problems" (heavy periods, suspected PCOS, etc.)

[PrincessFiona]

I'm with Angie on this one. I get screened every 3 years or so ... and even though I find it thoroughly embarrassing, I'm willing to go through it (even on the off chance of a false positive result) in order to potentially catch something needing treatment. The danger here is that common sense sort of flies out the window in medicine. I am imagining a world where the pendulum swings too far the other way and then individuals end up not being screened when they should be. If these exams become unpopular and aren't done on a semi-regular basis then what is the risk of someone not getting necessary treatment? We all like to think that it won't be us, but if it is and a disease wasn't discovered because we were too squeamish to go in or it was no longer recommended? Ugh. I don't know.

Marissa, I didn't go in until I was an adult too. My teenage daughter did at 17, and she wasn't embarrassed at all. I think it is more a function of the individual and less of age.

[ladymoreta]

I'd happily skip them if I didn't have to have it for BCP, so I'm probably one of those people the "rule" is made for. I think it's gotten very confusing about how often and if/when to start things like mammograms, paps, etc. They've saved lives, but they've also caused a lot of unnecessary worry and expense for patients. I think a good OB/Gyn's office could probably help manage those things, but mine is just a scattered mess that can't even handle a yearly BCP prescription.

[Sheherezade]

I agree that's its overly confusing. I complain about this to DH all the time.

[weeniegeniewife]

I have no ovaries or uterus, and was told I only need to come in for paps every 3-5 years now (still have my cervix, no Hx of abnormal paps).