Six years ago, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force doled outa controversial recommendation: Change long-standing breast cancerscreening recommendations and advise women to wait until age 50rather than 40 to start getting mammograms. The task force alsosaid women should get the test every other year instead ofannually.

Criticism was swift, and rightfully so. The call for the changedied down until the same recommendations resurfaced this month. I'mhoping the recommendations die this time around, too.

The proposed change has big ramifications: If therecommendations are finalized, according to Avalere Healthanalysis, the move could deny coverage of biennial mammograms tosome 17 million women, most of whom are covered byemployer-sponsored plans.

The guidelines go against the advice of actual medical groups,such as the American Cancer Society, the American MedicalAssociation and the American Congress of Obstetricians andGynecologists, all of whom say women should get annual mammogramsstarting when they're 40.

My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in her 40s after anannual mammogram. In some eyes, she was too early for averages, forpredictions—and for a mammogram, should these new guidelines stick.Though her cancer was anything but just a one-and-done surgery—thecancer spread, requiring chemotherapy, radiation and years of duediligence—it would have been impossible to beat had she never gonein for her routine mammogram. That simple test saved her life.

Statistics are against irreverence: 12.4 percent of women bornin the United States today will develop breast cancer at some timeduring their lives, according to the National Cancer Institute.That means a woman born today has about a 1-in-8 chance of beingdiagnosed with breast cancer at some time during her life.Incidences are on the rise, too. In the 1970s, for instance, thelifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer in the UnitedStates was just under 10 percent.

I don't think mammograms are the end-all, be-all in breastcancer prevention. It's not a perfect test; there are misdiagnosesand over-testing and excessive biopsies. Just as with anypreventative procedure, there's the question of “How much is toomuch?” But my medical philosophy fits squarely in the “I'd ratherbe safe than sorry” boat.

In the ongoing debate over mammograms and screenings, you'llread things about how mammograms are generally unnecessary,especially for younger patients. One such headline in theWashington Post screams “Stop routine breast-cancer screenings.Science has shown they don't save lives.”

I find arguments against preventive health measures often soabsurd that I generally wouldn't respond to them. But, in short,yes, there is such a thing as early- and late-stage cancers, soyes, early detection does save lives.

It's also important to note many women choose to forgo screeningguidelines. If they're worried about the potential harm of amammogram, as listed in the Post piece, they can avoid the test.But coverage under health plans is important for those smart enoughto follow guidelines and get preventive care.

You can argue science, argue costs, argue that yearly tests andthe possibility of further testing is too “stressful” for patients(yes, this is a real argument I've read against mammograms) all youwant. But I would have grown up and lived most of my life withoutmy mother, without my closest friend, and without my confidante andcheerleader had she not had access to a mammogram before age50.

And her presence and existence in my life is worth a hell of alot more than any kind of science, any kind of statistic someonecould ever throw at me. And nothing is going to convince meotherwise.