I agree with CLKD, your doc is being crass and narrow minded.
There is still no clear association with HRT and it being the "real cause" of BC or others cancers in older woman.
Statistically 4 out of 5 cancers will affect those over 50 before HRT is even considered.
So the dice are loaded even before we start down the HRT route.
As someone recently posted before often cancer is down to plain old bad luck.
To prove without doubt we'd have to run a test with ladies who are only on HRT and have no outside influence on them in relation to lifestyle.
As I've said before alcohol on its on is many times worse for our breast health than HRT.
And we don't have our doc's lecturing us on our use of alcohol in the same way though?
Perhaps we'd be able to treat far more cancers in general with far better drugs if more people reduced or stopped drinking.
Rather than a tiny amount that could be possibly associated to HRT use.
I would love to know what cost this doc thinks is associated with our use of HRT in comparison. Or even how much we HRT users save the NHS on the things they "dont" have to treat us for!!!
"The total annual cost to society of alcohol-related harm is estimated to be £21bn"
"
The NHS incurs £3.5bn a year in costs related to alcohol."
"NHS increases budget for cancer drugs fund from £280 million"
Those are two stark comparisons on how futile and cruel doctors taking the "cant have hrt because it might give you cancer approach".
Perhaps if they paid more attention to the amount their patients drank first then we might have £3.5bn extra to treat cancer, menopause and any number of other health issues like the much touted "proton beam" therapy's.
Whether I smoke, drink, eat smoke meat or take HRT, its will always be my choice and I expect to be left alone and in piece to enjoy each one if I choose.
Hippocratic oath seems to be something they choose to use/quote/hide behind only when they feel like it.
