Letter: Cervical screening

Dr Kieran G. Sweeney
Tuesday 04 May 1993 18:02 EDT
Comments

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.

Sir: Kathryn B. Klingenstein argues that women in the UK should demand an annual cervical smear because that is the advice of doctors in the US (Letters, 1 May).

I spent seven months in the United States as a Harkness fellow, observing the healthcare system. I became aware, among other things, of the power that American physicians have to induce demand for their own services: it is frequently observed that, in those areas of the US where physicians are relatively numerous, the cost of medical outlays is relatively high. Consumer expectations also contribute to increasing the cost of medical care in the US. Many American citizens with minor respiratory illnesses would expect, and would receive, a throat swab and a chest X-ray before antibiotic treatment, whereas in this country most consumers would receive and accept reassurance that the illness was likely to be self-limiting.

As far as cervical screening is concerned, neither the US annual nor the UK quinquennial screening program seem to fit the persuasive epidemiological evidence, which supports three-yearly screening.

Yours sincerely,

KIERAN G. SWEENEY

Exeter

2 May

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in