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

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

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

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

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

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

You can argue science, argue costs, argue that yearly tests and the possibility of further testing is too “stressful” for patients (yes, this is a real argument I've read against mammograms) all you want. But I would have grown up and lived most of my life without my mother, without my closest friend, and without my confidante and cheerleader had she not had access to a mammogram before age 50.

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