Lorraine Zigman’s letter about her late husband, who died of prostate cancer at age 79, should be required reading for anyone who thinks that men over 70 can safely stop getting the prostate-specific antigen test (“Talk with doctor about PSA test,” Oct. 15).
I stopped getting tested at age 73, right after the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force declared, in 2012, that men over 70 could safely stop doing so. Five years later, when extreme fatigue led me to get tested again, my PSA was 65 (normal is 4 or lower), and I was diagnosed with stage 4 metastatic prostate cancer. Luckily, I remain alive and well because of a new drug called Zytiga, which has brought my PSA down to well below 1. But that hardly justifies what the Preventive Services Task Force is still saying.
The task force warns that a high PSA score can be a false alarm, leading to needless biopsies and other invasive procedures and also to complications such as incontinence and impotence. Why then even start going up this escalator? My answer is simple. A PSA test is not the first step leading irresistibly to needless complications. It’s the first step of a stairway fitted with landings where you can stand as long as you want to weigh your options.
I’ve read that the average man’s chances of ending up with a cancer like mine are less than 1%. But so far as I know, no one has tried to calculate the risks of indefinitely skipping the PSA test.
So here’s my question: Given the simplicity of the test, does the risk of anxiety sparked by a fallible alarm, and the cost and trouble of the tests required to verify it, really outweigh the risk of letting a cancer grow undetected for years on end until it invades the skeleton — as mine did?
JAMES HEFFERNAN
Hanover
As a candidate for the Ward II seat on the Claremont City Council, I have a confession to make. I love Claremont. I moved here from New York to care for a family member. It was hard leaving my home, where I had lived for 50 years, but Claremont welcomed me. It is where I live, where I work and where I have built a new life.
Most of my time in Claremont, for the past 15 years, has been in public service: running homeless programs, and as a contract worker for Juvenile Justice Services, a teaching assistant in SAU 6, a family service coordinator for Pathways, a research interviewer for the Department of Education and, currently, at the Claremont Senior Center. I have gotten to know Claremont very well and I have made many friends in the community and in my faith community.
I hear some negativity when I talk to people about taxes or open government, but no one I speak to is planning to move away. They just want some updates to our city. I would like to help guide the city government in this quest for fairness.
There are some issues I am concerned about. Taxes, of course, are typically the No. 1 issue with voters, but there are other concerns. I am not seeing fairness to voters with zoning and planning decisions. I am not seeing fairness with the new merit pay plan proposed by the council. I am concerned with the lack of transparency. During the spring, a construction and demolition facility was proposed in an inappropriate area and the voters were unaware until the last minute. A group of citizens organized the group A Better Claremont and we fought against this facility.
I also firmly believe that the City Council seat I am running for is not mine but yours. Scott Pope has chosen not to run after a long history of exemplary public service. I would be honored to take his place and represent you. I will work for fairness, transparency, inclusion, civility and accountability.
JIM CONTOIS
Claremont