I can't see into her mind; I'm not telepathic, but I speculate that her and the the task force's decision was based on the absence of data. I think many of us wish the recommendation had been that we invest in collecting data, evidence and more anecdotal stories to recognize that there are differences. Maybe the task force was rushed and had a tight deadline. As I said, I don't know why the task force and the chair feel the way they do.
I, myself, and some of the other witnesses found it interesting that one reason she gave for that when she was asked about it was that many women don't like the experience of a mammogram—it's painful and they prefer to not know. To me, those are disturbing reasons to keep the recommended age at 50 rather than 40, because, as I said, knowledge is power. Yes, many of us are afraid. I was afraid when I found my lump as well, but as a scientist, I knew that it was in my best interest to know, because the earlier it's diagnosed, the better.
As I said, I can't speak to what was going on in her mind. I don't know what the committee discussed and how much evidence they had, but I think they acknowledged that there was very little evidence.
What's interesting is that there's significant evidence from the U.S., and it was surprising that they weren't willing to use that evidence to guide the decision or recommendation for the Canadian context. I know we like to differentiate ourselves and say we have to do what's best for Canadians, but we also need to recognize that in the absence of data, perhaps we should be using data from a country that has been doing this kind of research for at least three decades, as compared to Canada, where we're not collecting any demographic data on any patient for any disease, not just breast cancer. That is a huge oversight in Canada, and many of us have been advocating for that for at least a decade.