Ending routine PSA testing. Are the Girl Scouts and the Catholic Church headed for splitsville? Birth control lawsuits. Should the U.S. military cut NASCAR sponsorship spending? Oh, the places you’ll go!
Ending routine PSA testing for prostate cancer
This week, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force publicly called for putting an end to routine PSA tests for prostate cancer.
The group’s reasoning is that these tests often do more harm than good. For instance, while a test might result in revealing that someone has a tumor, the tumor might not be exactly life-threatening. Treatment in these situations, including biopsies and surgery, can potentially leave a patient impotent, incontinent or even worse—dead. That seems quite a price to pay for an affliction that wouldn’t necessarily put one’s life in danger if left alone. It’s for this very reason that the Task Force has already been advising for men over 75 not to get prostate cancer screenings at all.
Opponents of this plan, specifically the American Urological Association, are intensely upset with the Task Force’s proclamation. They claim that routine PSA tests prevent up to 40% of prostate cancers in men by catching the disease early, when it’s still curable.
But the argument once again becomes about the nature of cancer itself: do all cancers need to be detected early and cured? Could unnecessary treatment cause more harm than good? How can you tell when treatment is definitely necessary for prostate cancer and when it’s better to let sleeping dogs lie? What have your experiences been with prostate cancer screenings? Do you feel they are a beneficial tool? Or just another excuse to run up more healthcare costs?
GUESTS
Michael Lefever, M.D., Co-vice chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that wrote the new guidelines for PSA testing. Dr. Lefever is also the Future of Family Medicine Professor and Vice Chair of the Department of Family and Community Medicine and Chief Medical Information Officer for MU Health Care at the University of Missouri
Dr. Jeffrey Kaufman, Urologist, Western Medical Center in Santa Ana; Board member, American Urological Association; Past President, California Urological Association; Professor of Clinical Urology, University of California, Irvine
Are the Girl Scouts and the Catholic Church headed for splitsville?
The Girls Scouts of America are celebrating their centennial but the Catholic Church may be absent from the festivities. According to The Christian Science Monitor the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops has opened an official inquiry into certain materials released by the scouts and their affiliation with groups that have goals that may conflict with official church positions.
One of the biggest issues for the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, the committee within the Conference that’s looking into the Girl Scouts, is their association with the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS). WAGGGS is an 85-year-old organization supporting girls and young women in 145 countries across the globe.
The problem the Church has with the WAGGGS is that they support girls openly discussing sexuality and have called for increased condom use. The scouts have also been linked to other groups whose missions include — among many other things — family planning. Groups like the international aid organizations Oxfam and Doctors without Borders. For their part the Girl Scouts say they welcome the investigation and hope once the bishops gather the information they’ll be less worried about the scouts affiliations.
But there also seems to be some frustration with their ongoing role in the culture wars. Girl Scouts Spokeswoman Michelle Tompkins told the Monitor that people are using the Girl Scouts to further an agenda. She says it’s sad that the scout’s goal of furthering the leadership of girls is getting lost in the controversy. However, if the bishops aren’t satisfied that the scouts are towing the line it could be a very big blow. About a quarter of the scouts membership is Catholic and many troops are affiliated with Catholic churches.
If Bishops were to pull the plug on the Girl Scouts what would it mean for them, especially considering their membership has dwindled in recent years? The Girl Scouts have made some changes to their materials in an attempt to appease the church. How far should they go to save the relationship? Will the Scouts cut ties with groups the church finds problematic? Should they?
GUESTS
Michelle Tompkins, Spokesperson, The Girl Scouts of U.S.A.
Bob McCarty, Executive Director of the National Federation for Catholic Youth Ministry
Federal mandated birth control access faces challenges in court
The Obama administration is being sued by many prominent Catholic institutions who are challenging a federal mandate for employers to provide contraception to their employees. The archdiocese of New York and Washington D.C. and even some Catholic universities like Notre Dame are among the higher profile groups that are filing the lawsuit.
These groups claim that such a mandate would compel them to violate church doctrine and teaching pertaining to birth control by offering it to many of their employees. Some employers are exempt from the federal mandate but many including schools, hospitals and charity groups that offer large arrays of services, are not. Some of the Archbishops representing the dioceses in the lawsuit are expressing their increasing frustration with the administration saying that the courts were the last resort.
Proponents of the federal mandate are organizations like Planned Parenthood who emphasis that access to birth control is critical in developing and maintaining the health and economic standards for American women among other benefits.
So, does the federal mandate go too far and infringe upon a groups freedom of religion? Is mandate coverage of birth control a basic human health service that should be offered to all employees? Should birth control be left solely up to those who want it or should it be accessible to everyone regardless of their beliefs?
GUESTS
Richard W. Garnett, Professor of Law and Associate Dean at Notre Dame Law School
Sue Dunlap, CEO of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles
Should the US military cut NASCAR sponsorship spending?
NASCAR might be heading for a funding wreck, if a new amendment banning military sponsorship of professional sports becomes law. The proposal, approved in the House Appropriations Committee Thursday, would prohibit tax dollars from being used, “to sponsor professional or semi-professional motorsports, fishing, wrestling or other sports.”
The bipartisan amendment, which is attached to a $608-billion defense bill headed to the House of Representatives for consideration, is backed by Representatives Jack Kingston (R-GA) and Betty McCollum (D-MN).
Kingston argues that during this time of deep cuts and troop reductions, “the military should not be spending nearly $100 million sponsoring professional sports.” But backers of the sponsorship deals contend that motorsports are the best platform for the military to connect with potential recruits for America’s all-volunteer force.
At the heart of the debate is whether the spending is actually worthwhile or wasteful. Some estimate that military sponsorships of NASCAR have generated 50,000 potential recruits and are particularly effective because of the sport’s demographics. McCollum however, points to one race that the Air National Guard paid $650,000 to sponsor, resulting in zero actual recruits.
Is the U.S. military getting enough recruiting bang for its sponsorship bucks? Or are there better, more cost-effective recruiting tools out there? If NASCAR loses this one, who will pay for those gentlemen to start their engines?
GUEST
Jack Kingston, Republican Congressman representing first district in Georgia. Sponsored the amendment
Commencement-speech season: Oh, the places you’ll go!
It’s that time of the year again…time for college seniors all across the country to graduate and enter the real world.
But before they can step foot off their pristine college campuses, they must don a cap and gown, sit out in the sun for a few hours and listen to a speaker dispense wisdom and advice to be used for the rest of their lives. Some graduates will get to hear famous actors or comedians, others will listen to distinguished alumni who went on to work in politics or business, and the less lucky will sit through lectures from people no one’s heard of.
Speeches will range from funny to sincere, and topics covered will surely include the liberal arts, how to measure success and the importance of being virtuous in today’s society. But in perhaps the most unstable economic period of modern times, and certainly the most partisan, how effective will these call-to-action inspirational speeches be?
If you were delivering advice to those about to enter the workforce, what would you say? Do you even remember the commencement speech at your own graduation? Did any advice stick? Are you a college student getting ready to graduate? What topics do you hope your speaker will cover? More importantly, what topics do you hope they’ll avoid?
President Obama addresses Barnard College
Mitt Romney addresses Liberty University