Mammography Female Patient History: Fill & Download for Free

I notice that most of the replies have focussed on specific countries, those of the author of each reply. I am going to do the same for my own reply. I am going to focus in my reply to your question on the country in which I reside, the United Kingdom.I am going to give you four relatively brief examples of laws unfairly different for women and men. I hope you find these examples interesting.Rape laws:This is something that not many people know about. In the UK, women are, by law, exempt from prosecution for the crime of rape. British women cannot be charged with rape. This includes rape of other women, men and children. In the UK, only men, by law, can be charged with rape.Rape laws, in the UK, are derived from the Sexual Offences Act 2003.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_20030042_en.pdfThis act defines rape as follows:A person (A) commits an offence [of rape] if—(a) He intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person(B) with his penis,(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.The definition for rape, as you can see, has been written in such a way as to exclude women from prosecution for this crime. A sexual assault in the UK can only ever be considered rape if the assault were to be carried out by a penis.One of the worst paedophiles ever to be caught in British history was a woman called Vanessa George.Vanessa George is one beneficiary of our sexist rape laws. She is thought to have raped between 30 and 300 toddlers and infants throughout her career as a nursery school teacher. The reason why nobody knows the exact number of her rape victims is that she never admitted to her crimes, never cooperated with the police and never showed any remorse. Thanks to our sexist laws, she was never charged with rape but the lesser crime of sexual assault. Today she resides in an open prison where she is free to come and go as she pleases. She is currently up for parole and she is set to be freed in the coming few days after serving ten years in prison for her heinous crimes. She will be released with a different identity so no one will be able to identity her.In the UK conviction rates and prison sentences are lower for women than they are for men for all crimes without exception from murder to sexual assaults.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380090/women-cjs-2013.pdfIn 2015 the conviction rate for murder for women was roughly 200% lower than that for men (Office for National Statistics ) and 300% lower than the national average (Myths about rape conviction rates are putting people off going to the police | Amanda Bancroft).EDIT: Vanessa George was released from prison in September 2019, ten years into her sentence. Police still do not know the full scope of her crimes as she is still yet to cooperate with them. Ten years into her sentence, police still suspect that she was involved in the rape of many tens of infants over the span of her career as a nursery school teacher. She served a few months in prison for each rape she is suspected to have committed.Parental Rights:In the UK Fathers, under the law, lack equal rights to mothers.In the UK the rights and responsibilities of parents to their children fall under the Children Act 1989. This Act was heavily influenced by feminist politicians. It was first brought into affect in 1991, where for the first time in British history it denied fathers many of their rights to their children.The act imposed the following laws in the UK:All birth mothers, whether married or divorced, have automatic rights to their children, under any and all circumstances and conditions.Fathers do not have automatic rights to their children.Men married to the birth mother at the time that the child is born whether they consented to the birth of the child or not and whether the child is there’s or not, become automatically responsible for the child.Divorced and unmarried fathers do not have rights to their children.Divorced and unmarried fathers can only obtain rights to their children with the approval of the mother, the child or a judge.If families break up, the mother has the sole right to look after her child in a manner and place as she sees fit.Before the enactment of The Children Act in 1991, feminist politicians (Harriet Harman, Anna Coote and Patricia Hewitt) got together to write a policy paper called ‘The Family Way’ to advise the government on how to go about implementing laws such as those found in The Children Act 1989. In it they wrote the following:‘It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion.’These feminist inspired policies became part of the law here in the UK. They caused fathers to become denied their natural rights to their children. As a result of these feminist polices the majority of custody cases became awarded to mothers for whom there were no consequences for denying fathers visitation rights.Domestic Violence:In the UK laws pertaining to domestic violence, prostitution, child abuse, pornography, crimes against the elderly, sexual harassment are all regulated by the VAWG (Violence Against Women and Girls) Strategy. In an assessment of the VAWG strategy conducted in 2008 by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the CPS, the governmental body responsible for all prosecutions in the UK, states the following:"7.1 We have assessed this strategy as having a disproportionate impact on men as suspects and defendants. However, the evidence from the data reveals that the majority of violence is perpetrated by men on women. On that basis, the strategy is a proportionate way of meeting a legitimate aim."https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/equality-and-diversity-impact-assessment-cps-violence-against-women-strategy-and-actionThe CPS admits that the judicial system and the laws in this country are sexist against men both suspects and defendants. It then goes on to justify this sexism by claiming that most violence is committed by men on women. Hence, men, it claims deserve to be discriminated against in this way. This of course is wrong on a number of levels. Firstly, most violence in the UK is not perpetrated by men on women but rather men on other men. In fact, men are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime than women in the UK.Overview of violent crime and sexual offencesSecondly, this is a highly sexist justification for discrimination against men. Imagine this same logic be applied to people of colour or Jews. Would it not be racist if we were to justify discrimination in our laws against say people of colour because they committed crimes at a higher rate?The CPS goes on to state the following in its assessment of the VAWG strategy:"5.14.1 The Corston Report 2007 indicated that women with histories of violence and abuse are over-represented in the criminal justice system and can be described as victims as well as offenders. The report also indicates that relationship problems feature strongly in women's pathways to crime and many women in prison had been sexually, emotionally and physically abused."In this statement the CPS trivialises crimes perpetrated by women. It presents female criminals as victims and it promotes the government treat them more leniently than men.Our laws surrounding domestic violence here in the UK are not gender neutral. The main proponents of this bias are, again, feminists. This following tweet and article, written by feminist CEO of Women’s Aid, one of the largest feminist organisations in the world, demonstrate this:Domestic abuse could not be further from gender neutral. Wake up BritainSo, feminists, despite claiming that they want equality, often behind the scenes do their utmost to oppose it.Laws Prohibiting Men from Working in Certain Fields:Again, this is something that not many people know about.Here in the UK men are by law not allowed to work certain highly paid professions that are freely open to women.This is something that I learned about whilst working in a hospital radiology department as part of my clinical placement as a student in medicine. I noticed that there were zero male mammographers. I asked one of the radiographers why that was the case. She apologetically told me that male radiographers in this country are not allowed to pursue a career in mammography, a highly paid, highly competitive profession within radiography. I did a little research and I confirmed this fact. I found out that she was right. Male radiographers are, by law, not allowed to pursue a career in mammography in this country. Now, you might say well of course they are not going to allow men to work in a field that mainly involves the scanning of female breasts but there are no such restrictions on women within our country. As in, a woman can work in any field within radiography and medicine including those that involve the scanning of male sexual organs without any restrictions.Male radiographers have a huge sexist barrier blocking them from accessing and pursuing careers that women are allowed to pursue freely without restrictions. Ultrasound suffers from the same problems as mammography. Ultrasound is again a highly competitive and highly payed speciality within radiology. Men are not allowed to perform many procedures on women within ultrasound in this country rendering male sonogrpahers relatively useless. These barriers prevent men from pursuing sonography as a profession. There is a huge shortage of male sonographers in this country. A man that needs a scrotal ultrasound to check for testicular cancer has no alternative but to have his private parts examined by a female sonographer. I’ve seen this procedure. It is extremely difficult and uncomfortable for the male patient. If he requests a male sonographer to perform the procedure or a male radiologist he faces having to wait many months and travel long distances to have this urgent procedure performed. This forces men to be seen by female sonographers. Every female patient on the other hand is automatically offered the choice of a female sonographer and a female radiologist.It is worth noting here that the trade union for radiography met up in late 2017 and pushed for the end of laws prohibiting men from working in mammography. This change was accepted by the government, but it was heavily apposed by feminist groups within the union. Despite the change having come into affect in early 2018, men still face huge barriers in this female dominated field. There is huge discrimination against men by women working in this field and I have seen this discrimination first hand.In 2008 feminist politician Harriet Harman introduced legislation permitting political parties the use of women-only prospective parliamentary shortlists for 25 years. This allows political parties to form woman-only shortlists for positions within the parliament and the government. This policy wasn’t only anti-democratic in that it forced people to vote for candidates that the state had chosen for them as apposed to candidates that they preferred to vote for but it was also immensely sexist. It denied prospective male politicians a seat in parliament and a voice in government because of their sex in favour of less experienced, less qualified female prospective politicians.I hope you find these examples useful.

Short answer: None if asymptomatic, cardiac CT for calcium scoring some argue might be useful to monitor one’s cardiac risks in a high risk population and whether the instituted treatment to lower the risk was any good.Much more important is prevention by following a healthy lifestyle, see further, only most people aren’t motivated to do anything by themselves, just want “a pill against everything”, while the lifestyle beats the pill anytime.Long answer:In one not having any real (not imagined) cardiac symptoms, thus a very low pretest probability, stress testing hasn’t been proven to be of any use.In those having symptoms, or at high risk mainly being a hypertensive and/or a diabetic, testing might tell us how high the risk is, doing cardiac CT for calcium scoring, costing about USD 200,- and exposing the person to as much radiation as if undergoing mammography althought not the standard yet, might be useful to gauge the risks in these high risks patients, and to monitor if any treatment was effective if at all.If asymptomatic, no diagnostic tests are needed at all, in spite of all the testing offered to people having the money to pay for it, in India it seems to be included in some pension health package, instead everyone should follow a healthy lifestyle, this paper https://www.distilledspirits.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032047.full_.pdf shows after a 34 year following up two cohorts of 78,865 and 44,354 artiocipants that just following 5 simple lifestyle modification from around 40 - 50 yo females gain 14 life years, males gain 12.2 life years: (1) not smoking (2) keeping one’s BMI between 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2 (3) doing at least 150 minutes per week of moderate exercise (4) eat a healthy diet (5) limit one’s alcohol intake to a mean of 2 U/day in males, 1 U/day in females. This beats any benefits using meds including the much hyped statins have ever been able to show.In people having no cardiac symptoms at all, those having a low pretest probability (PTP) for coronary problems, you can do all kinds of exercise testing, but the sensitivity (how many % of those having relevant coronary problems are found) and specificity (how many % of those tested positive really have relevant coronary problems) are low, thus although done a lot (generates income for the docs, and give the patient a false sense of security so they go on with their unhealthy lifestyle: smoking, sedentary lifestyle, being obese etc.), they are only useful in people having cardiac symptoms, at random doing such test are therefore almost useless in otherwise healthy people having no cardiac symptoms. Especially because the same people if at risk didn’t modify their lifestyle, the main thrust of prevention, not meds to start with. We should lose the “I want a pill against every problem” attitude so commonly seen in the western world.From Is cardiac stress testing appropriate in asymptomatic adults at low risk?Patients who are at low risk of disease and without symptoms should not undergo cardiac stress testing. The test is unlikely to be helpful in these patients and may expose them to harm unnecessarily. Cardiac stress testing such as exercise electrocardiography is most useful in patients who have chest pain and shortness of breath on exertion, to look for underlying cardiovascular disease. Despite this, the test is often used inappropriately as part of a routine health evaluation in low-risk, asymptomatic people.The same goes for the more and more popular Cardiac CT for Calcium Scoring, from The proper use of coronary calcium score and coronary computed tomography angiography for screening asymptomatic patients with cardiovascular risk factorsHowever, asymptomatic risk-free patients should not be screenedSee this extensive paper on all kinds of testing Appropriate use of non-invasive testing for diagnosis of stable coronary arteryWe know of the risks factors, most of which you know too, the more risks factors, the higher the risk of having a heart attack later on in life:-SMOKING-male sex-older age-having hypertension, even if well treated see Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial which also showed that low dose aspirin lowers that elevated risk by 1/3.-having diabetes, a big, big risk factor upping the risk of having and dying of a heart attack within 7 years by 5.5 times, from Mortality from Coronary Heart Disease in Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes and in Nondiabetic Subjects with and without Prior Myocardial Infarction | NEJM-a sedentary lifestyle-a family history of coronary heart disease-elevated choleterol levels are at best moderately important, see this graphbut also notice the much higher mortality rate correlated with low cholesterol levels in the large Mr. Fit Study The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT)and the fact that uncontrolled hypertension is correlated with much higher death rates than cholesterol alone, also fromMr. Fit Study

Unfortunately, there is not one preventive examination proven to be useful to detect whether one has cancer or not. Many money hungry radiology clinics offer well person preventive whole body MRI, but this strategy hasn't been proven to prevent morbidity nor mortality in the population screened.At present, there are these proven screening methods I would adhere to if I were you:-for females: once every two years mammography, in The Netherlands >50 yo since in younger patients there are a lot of false positives necessitating a lot of burdensome further examinations to rule out cancer that isn't there. The efficacy has been hotly debated, but at present we think it's still (just?) worth while.-for females: >30 yo have a yearly Pap smears to detect precursor cells which might develop into cervical cancer, and treat the lesion to prevent cancer from developing.-examination on feces of occult blood every 2 to 3 years, which if not false positive usually means something is going on in your bowel, mostly adenomatous polyps, which is the precursor of colorectal cancer, these can be detected and removed (so preventing colorectal carcinoma from developing) by screening colonoscopy. Some are proposing to have a screening colonoscopy done anyway round 70 yo.This screening methods are hotly debated:-PSA screening in blood for prostatic cancer in males, in one big trial it didn't lead to less mortality, in another in did. The problem is that many prostatic cancers are quiescent and won't cause any harm, and aggressively operating upon these cancers cause a lot of problems e.g. incontinence, impotence etc., whilst not prolonging life.Screening for lung cancer can only meaningful be done with costly low dose spiral chest CT, also involving a lot of X-ray exposure which in itself can lead to cancer, and hasn't yet been found to be useful, even in people with COPD and more than 30 pack-years of smoking history, the very high risk group.