The aim of medicine is above all else, to do no harm. But one must wonder if that will be the case with a new medical recommendation on the detection of breast cancer.
For years, experts widely agreed that mammograms beginning at age 40 provided the best way for early detection of breast cancer. But new guidelines released this week by an important federal task force recommend a drastic change and raise new questions about the benefits of testing and exams.
The panel says women don’t need mammograms until they’re 50 and then only every other year, not annually. The potential harm of annual testing outweighs the benefits, the panel found. It was the first breast-cancer reassessment since 2002 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which typically guides federal policy.
The guidelines could have a far-reaching impact in the national debate over health-care reform. About 39 million women undergo mammograms each year in the United States. Critics worry that the policy shift could be a major setback for health, if insurers eventually scale back mammogram coverage for women in their 40s.
Add Paul Bremer, the former administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, to the list of those who disagree with the Obama administration's decision to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other al-Qaeda terrorists on trial in New York City.
The United States has used military tribunals for more than 200 years and they should be used in this case, Bremer said at a dinner during a conference last night at a conference on WMDs sponsored by the Heritage Foundation in Colorado Springs, Colo.
To revert to the pre-9/11 idea that terrorists are simply criminals means the country has "learned nothing," Bremer said. "We're right back where we started."
Two concerns are raised by the trials, Bremer said. One, that they will be a "wonderful recruiting device," providing a platform for Mohammed and the others to spew their jihadi message. Two, that prosecutors will either have to use evidence that will reveal sources and methods used against terrorists, or that some evidence will not be used, risking a not guilty verdict.
Bremer was an ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism during the Reagan administration and was named chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism in 1999.
In September, President Obama led the United Nations in the adoption of a resolution that calls for a world free of nuclear weapons, with further reductions in the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals an important part of that effort.
But instead of making the world a safer place, such reductions could lead to a more dangerous world, perhaps even a "Nuclear 1914," argues Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington think tank. Sokolski was speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo., yesterday at the Heritage Foundation's conference "The WMD Threat and America's Communities."
Sokolski says that over the next 10 years, while the United States and Russia would be reducing their weapons stockpiles to about 1,000 warheads, nuclear states such as China, India, Pakistan and Israel could be increasing theirs. Instead of having a much larger advantage, the United States could find itself within a few hundred weapons of these other countries.
In addition, the club of nuclear states is likely to grow, not shrink, in the next 20 years. Sokolski notes that 25 states have signaled their intentions to build large nuclear reactors -- what Sokolski calls "bomb starter kits" -- by 2030. "This could be a very different world," he writes in his paper "Toward Zero and Armageddon?" "Every weapons state currently in existence first brought a large reactor on line as part of their efforts to acquire their first bomb."
The world would go from one in which most of the nuclear weapons states are allies or strategic partners of the United States, to one where many more possible adversaries would be nuclear powers, Sokolski says. His list of potential nuclear states consists of Iran, Syria, Algeria, Turkey, North Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, South Korea and Japan.
He writes, "In such a world, the prospects for nuclear terrorism would be heightened but not just because there would be more opportunities to seize nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons materials. In addition, there would be more military and civilian nuclear facilities to sabotage. Finally, and most important, such a world would be so unstable that nonnuclear events, perhaps as limited as an assassination of the type that triggered World War I, could possibly trigger larger conflicts that could go nuclear."
In other words, "Nuclear 1914."
At the risk of being nicknamed “the million-dollar man,” Pittsburgh lawyer Templeton Smith Jr. remains the only losing Nov. 3 candidate still insisting on a costly – and likely fruitless - recount in the close race for a fourth seat on the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
“I’m not in this for a popularity contest,” acknowledges Smith, who is a Republican.
Now if he was a candidate from Philadelphia, people might understand his apparent willingness to let Pennsylvania taxpayers burn through up to $1.3 million that Secretary of State Pedro Cortes says a recount will cost. (Around 6 million votes were cast in the contests for three statewide appellate courts.)
After all, that’s what Harrisburg and the rest of the state expect from Philly folks - to waste the state’s money, right?
Even if it’s against regional type, Smith – as of this afternoon - was still insisting on a recount. For one thing, he questions whether it will cost as much as the Democratic Rendell administration says. (So it’s okay to waste less money?)
But Smith says he’s mostly interested in honoring the state legislature’s intent in passing a law some years ago that mandated automatic recounts when races are so close.
For now, Democrat and Philadelphia judge Anne E. Lazarus stands as the winner. The next runner-up, also a Democratc, has waived his right to a recount – as has another Democrat who finished behind Smith. (Full disclosure: The Editorial Board endorsed Lazarus, whom the state bar association lauded for her “superior writing ability, knowledge … and exceptional judicial temperament.”)
While Smith is right enough that the legislature mandated the recount, the law also provided candidates with the discretion to waive a count if there were no evidence of fraud. That’s certainly the case here. And with the prevalence of electronic voting across the state, it seems unlikely the outcome will differ.
Then again, that “million-dollar man” would be a pretty unique nickname to own.
Attorney General Eric Holder Jr.’s decision to put accused 9/11 terrorists on trial in federal court is an important step in upholding this nation’s principles of justice.
Holder announced Friday that the government will prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the attacks, and four codefendants in lower Manhattan. The trials will take place just blocks from the site where nearly 3,000 people were killed at the World Trade Center.
Critics, including some Republicans in Congress, prefer military tribunals for men whom they consider “enemy combatants.” They argue that a civilian trial will unnecessarily put New York City at risk of another attack, and that a military setting would be more secure. They also say that a trial in federal court will give the defendants a platform to vent their anti-U.S. views, and that the trial could become a “circus.”
Trying these defendants publicly in a civilian court in New York is the appropriate venue. By contrast, a military tribunal that led to a conviction would fuel belief that the government fixed the outcome.
Holder’s decision demonstrates that this nation believes in its system of justice, and doesn’t fear giving anyone the protections guaranteed by our Constitution.
Get it now
Philly.com Promotions
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
- Jobs | Cars | Real Estate | Rentals | Marketplace | Celebrations
