Now that we are past the age where the three martini lunch was an acceptable daily interlude, it is not acceptable for anyone to be under the influence of anything (other than a post-four hour meeting daze) in the work place.
Back in the late 70's and early 80's I worked in a restaurant that was a destination lunch place for a bunch of office park employees. We had cab company phone numbers next to the phone for those who could not safely drive themselves back to the office. Over the five years I was there, often working as a cashier, I watched the lunch checks go from three martinis to one glass of wine or a single Bloody Mary or other vodka based drinks. Times changed even then.
Later in the 1990's I worked for a British company and went to the UK regularly for week long trips. I was usually taken out to lunch at a local pub where I was expected to have a beer, or at least a half pint Shandy (lemon/lime soda with beer) with my meal. I usually declined because it would cause my jet lagged body to demand a post meal nap instead of working for the afternoon. In the US, I think its very rare that alcoholic beverages are consumed at lunch during the business day any more. I don't think any work place is immune to impaired employees but some of them have more long lasting implications than others.
When we go to the doctor we make a few basic assumptions, that they are trained and know what they are doing, they won't hesitate to consult their peers when they are unsure, and they are sober. While the majority of doctors would report their impaired colleagues, 17 percent actually have dealt with one. Um, do the math, that's one in six. I'm not picking on doctors and actually believe that they are probably one of the more conscientious industries. They are probably less likely to go out for fancy lunches to celebrate a business deal, or even have time to do more than grab a quick bite during the day. But when its my body and health that's being treated here, I would like the basics.
What astounded me about this article is that the numbers are so high. What it doesn't state is if the 17 percent reflects over their career they have dealt with impaired employees or over the past five years. We need a little more information here before becoming concerned. But I am already concerned. Should I start sniffing their breath?
Showing posts with label controversy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label controversy. Show all posts
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
A Way to End the What Age for Mammograms Controversy?
Work with me here, what if everyone could agree on one option for the mammogram controversy? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense? I mean there has been so much ink about this single issue. On one hand is prevention and on the other is over diagnosis and false positives, with a lot of other data, crap, history, and arguments added on to each. So what is the real answer?
I believe JAMA has the right idea here. In the age of personalized medicine, why are we hung up on cross the board requirements? JAMA suggests that we "Stop One Size Fits All Mammography".
"A woman's decision to undergo mammography "should be individualized based on patients' risk profiles and preferences," concludes a systematic review of 50 years of breast cancer screening data, published in the April issue of JAMA.
How to best go about achieving that individualization is not entirely clear, but clinicians need to make an effort with the tools that are currently available, such as decision aids and risk models,
suggest Lydia Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, both from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, in their review."
Their argument is that a woman should be able to make a decision on mammography with their doctor based on their risk. The problem is that current science does not allow us to accurately estimate all women's risk of breast cancer. So the problem isn't with mammography but with the ability to predict breast cancer.
Before we jump ahead to that issue, let's stick with making mammography a personalized decision. I think this is a great idea. If someone has a high risk background, they should start mammograms earlier. If they do not have one, they should decide with their doctor when they should start them. Insurance companies should cover them regardless. There doesn't have to be a national rule on when they should be started.
Now switching to being able to predict breast cancer. We can't really. The BRCA genes allow us to predict women who are high risk but that does not cover all women who will get breast cancer, really less than 10% I believe. There can be other risk factors, family history, genetic background, and more.
Since we can't really tell who will or will not get breast cancer and may never be able to, we do need to use whatever screening methods we have. Until we have something better than mammography, it is our tool to use as best we can. But it should be the patient's choice and not the insurance company's.
I believe JAMA has the right idea here. In the age of personalized medicine, why are we hung up on cross the board requirements? JAMA suggests that we "Stop One Size Fits All Mammography".
"A woman's decision to undergo mammography "should be individualized based on patients' risk profiles and preferences," concludes a systematic review of 50 years of breast cancer screening data, published in the April issue of JAMA.
How to best go about achieving that individualization is not entirely clear, but clinicians need to make an effort with the tools that are currently available, such as decision aids and risk models,
suggest Lydia Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, both from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, in their review."
Their argument is that a woman should be able to make a decision on mammography with their doctor based on their risk. The problem is that current science does not allow us to accurately estimate all women's risk of breast cancer. So the problem isn't with mammography but with the ability to predict breast cancer.
Before we jump ahead to that issue, let's stick with making mammography a personalized decision. I think this is a great idea. If someone has a high risk background, they should start mammograms earlier. If they do not have one, they should decide with their doctor when they should start them. Insurance companies should cover them regardless. There doesn't have to be a national rule on when they should be started.
Now switching to being able to predict breast cancer. We can't really. The BRCA genes allow us to predict women who are high risk but that does not cover all women who will get breast cancer, really less than 10% I believe. There can be other risk factors, family history, genetic background, and more.
Since we can't really tell who will or will not get breast cancer and may never be able to, we do need to use whatever screening methods we have. Until we have something better than mammography, it is our tool to use as best we can. But it should be the patient's choice and not the insurance company's.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Thoughts on mammograms and false positives
There has been a lot of controversy in recent years about the benefits of mammography and false positives. I read Dr Susan Love's take on how "Mammography is like the TSA" and the comments left by women. It made me think.
I started having annual mammograms at age 22 because of a benign fibroadenoma so I am sort of out of the discussion. My breast cancer was discovered 23 annual mammograms later at age 45. I went to all those mammograms without any concern until the one in 2007 (and if you are trying to figure out how old I am, currently I am 37) which turned into an ultrasound, a lot of denial on my part, followed by two surgeries, chemo, radiation, and hormone therapy to where I am now.
But if it was me to do it all over again, at this point I would rather be over treated and have a few false positives along the way than to have a cancer missed. My cancer could not be felt in a manual exam. My benign one way back when could be felt. My subsequent benign fibroademona, six months after my diagnosis, could not be felt either due to scar tissue. But it was visible in an MRI and ultrasound.
If you think about it, we have a tool available to us that helps with early detection and that alone does equate to saving lives. Its like wearing your seat belt. If you wear it every day, you are making your best effort. But on the one day you need it when that car pulls out of a side road in front of you, you are saved.
Dr Love makes an analogy of a mammogram like TSA screening which I can understand as well. Any effort we can make to help us live more safely makes sense. You can opt out of wearing your seat belt at your own risk. You can opt out of your annual mammogram at your own risk. But there shouldn't be someone blocking you from access.
The risk for breast cancer starts to increase for women at age 40 so there is no reason to delay mammograms until age 50 - just because the risk is significantly greater. As Dr Love points out there are many types of cancers and each are different. She raises the question that we may need to reevaluate the goal for early detection . But until it is changed, I am sticking with my annual mammogram.
I started having annual mammograms at age 22 because of a benign fibroadenoma so I am sort of out of the discussion. My breast cancer was discovered 23 annual mammograms later at age 45. I went to all those mammograms without any concern until the one in 2007 (and if you are trying to figure out how old I am, currently I am 37) which turned into an ultrasound, a lot of denial on my part, followed by two surgeries, chemo, radiation, and hormone therapy to where I am now.
But if it was me to do it all over again, at this point I would rather be over treated and have a few false positives along the way than to have a cancer missed. My cancer could not be felt in a manual exam. My benign one way back when could be felt. My subsequent benign fibroademona, six months after my diagnosis, could not be felt either due to scar tissue. But it was visible in an MRI and ultrasound.
If you think about it, we have a tool available to us that helps with early detection and that alone does equate to saving lives. Its like wearing your seat belt. If you wear it every day, you are making your best effort. But on the one day you need it when that car pulls out of a side road in front of you, you are saved.
Dr Love makes an analogy of a mammogram like TSA screening which I can understand as well. Any effort we can make to help us live more safely makes sense. You can opt out of wearing your seat belt at your own risk. You can opt out of your annual mammogram at your own risk. But there shouldn't be someone blocking you from access.
The risk for breast cancer starts to increase for women at age 40 so there is no reason to delay mammograms until age 50 - just because the risk is significantly greater. As Dr Love points out there are many types of cancers and each are different. She raises the question that we may need to reevaluate the goal for early detection . But until it is changed, I am sticking with my annual mammogram.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Five New Breast Cancer Controversies
At the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium last week, there are five new breast cancer discoveries controversies. I know a couple of people who was there and hope to hear more from them but this is what I have for opinions so far:
1. Claim: Chemobrain starts before starting chemotherapy.Results were presented to show that in a study women who had not gone through chemo were showing the symptoms - which can also be caused by worry and fatigue. Hello, if you are diagnosed with cancer, have surgery, and are facing chemotherapy perhaps you might be a tad bit worried and tired?
My take on this is that first of all this study was done by people who don't believe chemo brain is real. Symptoms of chemobrain could also be the same as those caused by worry and fatigue. But the difference with chemobrain is the symptoms do not go away once you stop stressing and get some rest. There is a difference.
2. Claim: Taking Tamoxifen for ten years is better than five years. First of all this isn't new. This is just a new study that they are showing results. My take is that more testing is needed as it goes against what has previously been shown.
3. Claim: Doubling the dose of fulvestrant is better. I have no opinion here as I do not know anything about this drug.
4. Claim: Twice as long is not better with Herceptin. My take is this is only confirming previous research.
5. Claim: Avastin isn't indicated for breast cancer. My take is this is not new. This has been resolved a while back.
Let me just say I am not a doctor or researcher, I am merely a patient. I admit I am not perfect so I could be wrong and these are my opinions.
So overall, We have one new claim that I, and many other women with chemobrain, disagree with completely. One claim I can't say anything about. And three claims is that I say are not new.
Hmmm.... I think I need some more proof to show that these are truly new and breakthroughs in some way. But I am not buying most of these.
1. Claim: Chemobrain starts before starting chemotherapy.Results were presented to show that in a study women who had not gone through chemo were showing the symptoms - which can also be caused by worry and fatigue. Hello, if you are diagnosed with cancer, have surgery, and are facing chemotherapy perhaps you might be a tad bit worried and tired?
My take on this is that first of all this study was done by people who don't believe chemo brain is real. Symptoms of chemobrain could also be the same as those caused by worry and fatigue. But the difference with chemobrain is the symptoms do not go away once you stop stressing and get some rest. There is a difference.
2. Claim: Taking Tamoxifen for ten years is better than five years. First of all this isn't new. This is just a new study that they are showing results. My take is that more testing is needed as it goes against what has previously been shown.
3. Claim: Doubling the dose of fulvestrant is better. I have no opinion here as I do not know anything about this drug.
4. Claim: Twice as long is not better with Herceptin. My take is this is only confirming previous research.
5. Claim: Avastin isn't indicated for breast cancer. My take is this is not new. This has been resolved a while back.
Let me just say I am not a doctor or researcher, I am merely a patient. I admit I am not perfect so I could be wrong and these are my opinions.
So overall, We have one new claim that I, and many other women with chemobrain, disagree with completely. One claim I can't say anything about. And three claims is that I say are not new.
Hmmm.... I think I need some more proof to show that these are truly new and breakthroughs in some way. But I am not buying most of these.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Pink transparency needed
Consumers are becoming skeptical about the pinkification of products. There was a research study done - marketing not medical - titled "Consumers Question Intent and Impact of Breast Cancer Cause Marketing". It was done as part of Cone Research's Trend Tracker Series.
Here are a few tidbits from it:
"Although three-quarters (74%) of Americans state they are more likely to purchase a breast cancer-related product or service during October over others, with price and quality being equal, they are becoming desensitized and increasingly skeptical.
"2012 Breast Cancer Cause Marketing TrendsCone Communications’ has identified five leading trends from the breast cancer cause marketing efforts this October, including:
So perhaps the average consumer is over pinkified as well.
Here are a few tidbits from it:
"Although three-quarters (74%) of Americans state they are more likely to purchase a breast cancer-related product or service during October over others, with price and quality being equal, they are becoming desensitized and increasingly skeptical.
-
77 percent of consumers think some companies support the breast cancer cause solely for corporate gain
-
68 percent say very few breast cancer cause promotions stand out to them, given the large number of programs in the marketplace
-
30 percent do not know whether their purchases actually benefit the cause"
"2012 Breast Cancer Cause Marketing TrendsCone Communications’ has identified five leading trends from the breast cancer cause marketing efforts this October, including:
- Diversifying nonprofit partners: No longer do one or two large nonprofits rule the breast cancer space in October. As the breast cancer cause undergoes increased scrutiny, brands are turning to distinct partners for a unique approach and impact. Nonprofits shining through include: Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Young Survival Coalition, among other niche organizations.
- Putting a face on the issue: Whether featuring real-world cancer survivors as campaign models, as in Ford’s Warriors in Pink “Models of Courage,” or naming products after breast cancer victims, such as Caribou Coffee’s “Amy’s Blend,” brands are connecting with consumers through true-life stories, quite literally putting the faces of breast cancer, not the brand, front and center.
- Shifting from the grocery aisle to the beauty aisle: “Pink” once seemed centralized to food and beverage products, but today the fashion and beauty industry is taking center-stage. From cosmetics, to jewelry, to apparel, the bulk of this year’s campaigns are coming from the beauty world.
- Going beyond donations: Some brands, like Avon and Novartis, are providing more than just dollars toward the cause – they are creating opportunities for people affected by breast cancer to connect to critical emotional support through online communities and social networking.
- Curating collections: Companies such as Sephora and Macy’s are offering carefully selected “suites” of products in support of breast cancer, giving consumers a wider selection of items to purchase and maximizing opportunities to capture support.
Monday, March 26, 2012
I put this in the self-inflicted category
The Komen Foundation is having problems meeting its fundraising goals at recent events. Why doesn't this surprise me?
- They shot themselves in the foot with the Planned Parenthood flap and their inability to handle the bad press.
- They shot themselves in the foot when their 990s (tax forms for non profits) showed the high salaries paid to executives and amounts that went to research vs. what goes to run events.
- They shot themselves in the foot when key employees started leaving the organization - which had very little to do with the Planned Parenthood flap. Now their board chair is leaving allegedly at the request of his employer to distance himself from the organization.
- And they completely 'opened mouth, inserted foot' with every effort to handle these issues.
Now their wallet and bank account is taking a hit. This is becoming the poster child for how not to run a non-profit.
A non-profit needs to be clear in how their funds are used, they need complete transparency on their finances, they need to stand behind what they say they do, and they should not succumb to political pressures. Not only that, they need to be very clear on all of the above. If a potential donor wants to know any of the above, it must be very easy to find the information. Any potential possibility of false pretenses will result in lack of donations. This is what has happened to Komen.
I happen to work for a local non-profit and handle fundraising, development, outreach, and marketing. I strive to be as clear as possible with what we do, what are our goals, and where our money goes. It is a very small organization so we do not have as complicated finances that Komen has but transparency is invaluable.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Handling change
Change happens in life. Or we should say 'sh*t happens'. There is nothing we can do about it. Again 'resistance is futile'. Darwin told us about survival of the fittest - the ones who adapt are the ones who survive. If you do not adapt, you will become extinct.
I volunteer with a non profit organization - actually I volunteer for a bunch of organizations. But there is one organization that has been faced with a lot of change over the last few years. They have grown from a small organization to a big organization which is a good thing. As a result they have had to mature and change the way they do business. Systems that were grassroots focused, with everyone pitching in to do what they can, now have been streamlined and replaced by new ones. People have new roles. Older expectations have been replaced by new ones. Former volunteers and employees have left and new ones have come in. This is not a bad thing. It is sad to see people leave but people do move on in life.
The organization has also had some growing pains over time. There have been issues with conflict with personnel, a problem employee, and lack of transparency. Some of the changes are to compensate for these issues. These things happen and life will go on. The problem employee has left. New expectations are being laid out. The organization continues to do its good things.
BUT (and that is a big fat but!) some people, volunteers mostly, are not handling the change well. There is some disgruntledness coming out from the volunteers. It is spreading negativity and unhappiness. I am not sure why it is continuing. Every new bit of change is being disparaged with additional comments. While I believe in the organization and like what I do for them, I am getting to the point where I don't want to be associated with them. Not because of the changes but because of the way some people are not adapting to the change.
It is taking the fun out of it for me. I am approaching a crossroads where I must make a decision on whether I continue to volunteer or not. I am sure I can find other organizations where I can volunteer but I have made friends with the other volunteers and will miss them and the organization.
Its all about handling change. I am trying but feel I am being pushed away by the unhappy ones. Maybe the change that happens is I move on.
I volunteer with a non profit organization - actually I volunteer for a bunch of organizations. But there is one organization that has been faced with a lot of change over the last few years. They have grown from a small organization to a big organization which is a good thing. As a result they have had to mature and change the way they do business. Systems that were grassroots focused, with everyone pitching in to do what they can, now have been streamlined and replaced by new ones. People have new roles. Older expectations have been replaced by new ones. Former volunteers and employees have left and new ones have come in. This is not a bad thing. It is sad to see people leave but people do move on in life.
The organization has also had some growing pains over time. There have been issues with conflict with personnel, a problem employee, and lack of transparency. Some of the changes are to compensate for these issues. These things happen and life will go on. The problem employee has left. New expectations are being laid out. The organization continues to do its good things.
BUT (and that is a big fat but!) some people, volunteers mostly, are not handling the change well. There is some disgruntledness coming out from the volunteers. It is spreading negativity and unhappiness. I am not sure why it is continuing. Every new bit of change is being disparaged with additional comments. While I believe in the organization and like what I do for them, I am getting to the point where I don't want to be associated with them. Not because of the changes but because of the way some people are not adapting to the change.
It is taking the fun out of it for me. I am approaching a crossroads where I must make a decision on whether I continue to volunteer or not. I am sure I can find other organizations where I can volunteer but I have made friends with the other volunteers and will miss them and the organization.
Its all about handling change. I am trying but feel I am being pushed away by the unhappy ones. Maybe the change that happens is I move on.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Let's take the politics out of health care
I know this is a novel idea but I really think we should take the politics out of health care. When we are worried about our health, we go to the doctor. Do we ask our doctor which political party they belong to? No because it is not relevant. Do health ailments discriminate against certain political stances? No. If I could become healthy by switching political parties, I would be happy to.
So why has health and health care become a political issue? The recent Komen/Planned Parenthood brouhaha has brought this issue to the forefront. No health issue and access to health care should have its availability compromised based on politics. National health reform is also tainted by this as well. The purpose of national health care reform is to make health care accessible and affordable to all. That's it. The end result should be saved lives. I don't have problems with that one. People who are alive are happy people.
But why do politics need to get involved with health care? In the case of the Komen/Planned Parenthood PR disaster, accusations are flying regarding people's stance on abortion which is a political hot button. From their website:
"For more than 90 years, Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to women’s health and well-being, based on respect for each individual’s right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning."
Only 3% of their services include abortion which is THE issue, that means that 97% of their services are not related to abortion. (I personally don't care what you think about abortion because that is not the issue here.) My opinion is that this is about accessible women's health care. Women of all political beliefs, races, creeds, religions, heights, weights, and ages need access to health care. If they can't afford it, they need to have resources to help them. By politicizing the access to health care, women will be denied it. How much sense does that make? It doesn't.
So let's get the politics out of health care.
So why has health and health care become a political issue? The recent Komen/Planned Parenthood brouhaha has brought this issue to the forefront. No health issue and access to health care should have its availability compromised based on politics. National health reform is also tainted by this as well. The purpose of national health care reform is to make health care accessible and affordable to all. That's it. The end result should be saved lives. I don't have problems with that one. People who are alive are happy people.
But why do politics need to get involved with health care? In the case of the Komen/Planned Parenthood PR disaster, accusations are flying regarding people's stance on abortion which is a political hot button. From their website:
"For more than 90 years, Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to women’s health and well-being, based on respect for each individual’s right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning."
Only 3% of their services include abortion which is THE issue, that means that 97% of their services are not related to abortion. (I personally don't care what you think about abortion because that is not the issue here.) My opinion is that this is about accessible women's health care. Women of all political beliefs, races, creeds, religions, heights, weights, and ages need access to health care. If they can't afford it, they need to have resources to help them. By politicizing the access to health care, women will be denied it. How much sense does that make? It doesn't.
So let's get the politics out of health care.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Following a controversy
I am always interested in controversies. Anything that is controversial makes news - which sometimes often gets over-hyped by the media and ends up boring us to death because there is too much. What I find most interesting about controversy is how the controversial behavior is handled by the two sides. There is always controversy - we can't escape it. If we do something wrong, do we apologize or do we run away? An apology or explanation is a good way to handle something, running away, avoiding the issue, or worse a bad apology is a bad way to handle it. This applies in every part of life - there is no getting around it.
The latest controversy in the news is that the Komen foundation has announced they will no longer fund Planned Parenthood. Actually what they did is decide not to renew a grant. If you read the news articles that were first made available yesterday:
"Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a leader in fundraising for breast cancer research and famous worldwide for its iconic pink ribbon, said Tuesday that it was halting all partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates because of recently adopted criteria that forbid it from funding any organization under government investigation.
In September, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) launched an inquiry to determine whether Planned Parenthood uses public money to fund abortions. Planned Parenthood receives federal money but cannot use it to provide abortions.
Komen has a long history of providing funding to various Planned Parenthood affiliates for such services as manual breast exams and referrals for mammograms and biopsies to check suspicious lumps for cancer. Although that money is not used for abortions, the Komen Foundation may have yielded to demands from antiabortion groups to sever its ties to Planned Parenthood.
"We had the sense this was coming and that they were under pressure," said Sue Dunlap, chief executive of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles. "I find this really disappointing. I think when women's health is more of a political conversation than a conversation about healthcare and taking care of people, then we've gone too far."
Officials for Planned Parenthood Federation of America said they learned of Komen's new stance on funding late last year and asked the Komen board of directors for a meeting to resolve any issues or questions related to funding. The meeting did not take place, said Cecile Richards, the federation's president.
"We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure," Richards said in a statement. "Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count."
Over the last five years, Planned Parenthood has provided about 4 million breast exams and referrals for 70,000 mammograms nationwide. Funding from Komen covers about 170,000 of the breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals, Richards said. Although mammograms and biopsies are referred out, Planned Parenthood doctors manage their patients' cases."
This sparked a sense of outrage all over - this was the hot topic of the internet yesterday - it was more popular than Justin Beiber, the presidential election, and the Facebook IPO combined. The outrage centered on the potential political slant of the decision.
The Komen foundation itself was decidedly silent on the topic itself which was to its detriment. I call this poor handling. The silence allowed people to polarize and express their fury again and again.
This morning I received a link to an official video of Nancy Brinker explaining their position and why they made the decision. I call it a non-answer:
She does not address the issues of the controversy. She states they are staying true to their cause and the promise to her sister. She talks about changing their grant policies. She does not talk about the statement from the Komen foundation about not funding organizations under investigation. She could be talking about any decision, not this one.
A non profit owes it to the donors to explain their decisions. People won't donate to places which upset them. They donate to places which they feel support their beliefs. It is hard for a donor to believe in an organization which doesn't explain their decision.
And now we have reports that Planned Parenthood received a record $650,000 in donations in 24 hours - which basically replaces the Komen grant money they will no longer receive.
This is a controversy which I believe was poorly handled by Komen. The proof is in the money.
But I am sure the media will beat this to death for the next six months until we are bored. We need a new scandal fast so this one will not be the controversy which would not go away.
The latest controversy in the news is that the Komen foundation has announced they will no longer fund Planned Parenthood. Actually what they did is decide not to renew a grant. If you read the news articles that were first made available yesterday:
"Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a leader in fundraising for breast cancer research and famous worldwide for its iconic pink ribbon, said Tuesday that it was halting all partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates because of recently adopted criteria that forbid it from funding any organization under government investigation.
In September, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) launched an inquiry to determine whether Planned Parenthood uses public money to fund abortions. Planned Parenthood receives federal money but cannot use it to provide abortions.
Komen has a long history of providing funding to various Planned Parenthood affiliates for such services as manual breast exams and referrals for mammograms and biopsies to check suspicious lumps for cancer. Although that money is not used for abortions, the Komen Foundation may have yielded to demands from antiabortion groups to sever its ties to Planned Parenthood.
"We had the sense this was coming and that they were under pressure," said Sue Dunlap, chief executive of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles. "I find this really disappointing. I think when women's health is more of a political conversation than a conversation about healthcare and taking care of people, then we've gone too far."
Officials for Planned Parenthood Federation of America said they learned of Komen's new stance on funding late last year and asked the Komen board of directors for a meeting to resolve any issues or questions related to funding. The meeting did not take place, said Cecile Richards, the federation's president.
"We are alarmed and saddened that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation appears to have succumbed to political pressure," Richards said in a statement. "Our greatest desire is for Komen to reconsider this policy and recommit to the partnership on which so many women count."
Over the last five years, Planned Parenthood has provided about 4 million breast exams and referrals for 70,000 mammograms nationwide. Funding from Komen covers about 170,000 of the breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals, Richards said. Although mammograms and biopsies are referred out, Planned Parenthood doctors manage their patients' cases."
This sparked a sense of outrage all over - this was the hot topic of the internet yesterday - it was more popular than Justin Beiber, the presidential election, and the Facebook IPO combined. The outrage centered on the potential political slant of the decision.
The Komen foundation itself was decidedly silent on the topic itself which was to its detriment. I call this poor handling. The silence allowed people to polarize and express their fury again and again.
This morning I received a link to an official video of Nancy Brinker explaining their position and why they made the decision. I call it a non-answer:
She does not address the issues of the controversy. She states they are staying true to their cause and the promise to her sister. She talks about changing their grant policies. She does not talk about the statement from the Komen foundation about not funding organizations under investigation. She could be talking about any decision, not this one.
A non profit owes it to the donors to explain their decisions. People won't donate to places which upset them. They donate to places which they feel support their beliefs. It is hard for a donor to believe in an organization which doesn't explain their decision.
And now we have reports that Planned Parenthood received a record $650,000 in donations in 24 hours - which basically replaces the Komen grant money they will no longer receive.
This is a controversy which I believe was poorly handled by Komen. The proof is in the money.
But I am sure the media will beat this to death for the next six months until we are bored. We need a new scandal fast so this one will not be the controversy which would not go away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)