The researchers don't seem to know why, but there is a decline in the number of women in the United States age 40 or older who have had mammograms over the last two years.

A study published in the journal Cancer says that during the period from 1987 to 2000, there was a steady increase in women receiving mammograms. They believe this to be somewhat responsible for the increase in breast cancer survival that occurred during that period. Supporting the phrase -- early detection saves lives.

They evaluate the trends in mammography use by a survey that is administered to 35,000 adults called the National Health Interview Survey. The current analysis focused on women who had mammograms in the last two years. The survey showed that in the year 2000, 70 percent of women reported they had a mammogram in the previous two years. In the year 2005, the number was down to 66 percent.

Today I offer you not so much a Thought for the Day but a Question for the Day. Before I ask my pressing question, though, I want you to consider this story.

Diagnosed with a rare malignant melanoma on her retina in 2001, Ann Guthrie, a South Carolina wife and mother of two grown sons, endured radiation and chemotherapy. The treatments shrunk Guthrie's tumor, but another mass appeared two years later, forcing the removal of her right eye.

At about the same time Guthrie lost her eye, cancer was discovered in her lungs. It was inoperable. Then cancer landed in her brain. And now, without any approved treatment avenues, Guthrie is out of options.

Like many people with terminal illnesses, this woman is willing to try just about anything -- a clinical trial, experimental drugs, risky treatments -- to extend her life. If she's going to die anyway, why not? She just might live longer. And if she doesn't, she could at least help advance science by offering herself up as a sort of guinea pig.

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed changes that would make it easier for patients to access options like these, it's just not that simple right now.

There are ethical issues -- like weighing the needs of people who think anything is better than death against the need of society to prove drugs and treatments work safely. The only way to ensure a sort of balance is through clinical trials -- and letting anyone participate in clinical trials, for example, would make the results harder to interpret.

And there are medical and legal risks. What if terminally ill patients end up in worse shape after a treatment with an experimental drug, for example? What if the FDA or a physician is considered responsible for adverse drug reactions?

Denying terminal patients their last bits of hope is difficult. "It's a hard discussion to have with a patient and his family," says one doctor. "There's a lot of tears. We all would love to be able to get them access to some form of therapy."

And now for my question:

What do you think about terminally ill cancer patients and their access to anything that might extend -- or save -- their lives?

Dr. Chandra Belani, Professor of Medicine and Oncology at the University of Pittsburg Cancer Institute, is a leader in the study of lung cancer. During a podcast interview, Belani shares some thoughts on the state of lung cancer -- currently the most common cause of cancer death in the United States.

Belani reveals that progress in the areas of lung cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment can best be described as modest. There has been some progress -- and there are many on-going studies in these areas -- but there are no major breakthrough stories. Belani says there has been modest progress in diagnosis with the use of CT scans and PET scans -- and a combination of the two. There has been modest progress in chemotherapy treatment options. There has been no significant advance in detection -- and prevention is mostly in the hands of each individual since 90 percent of lung cancer cases are related to smoking.

Belani shares that true achievement would come with the discovery of a biomarker to detect lung cancer early and to lower overall mortality rates. He would also like to determine why he is seeing an increase in lung cancer cases among non-smokers.

The bar is being raised, says Belani. But it's slow going.

There is no doubt that the new cervical cancer vaccine -- Gardasil -- is revolutionary. But writer Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, shared yesterday on the washingtonpost.com that the public should consider two cautions when digesting the news of this breakthrough medical advance. He urges us, first, to understand that the vaccine is not 100 percent effective. It is 100 percent effective for the strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) it targets -- but it leaves 30 percent of HPV strains that cause cervical cancer untouched. And it does not prevent all cases of genital warts either. So it is largely effective. But it does not completely eradicate the disease.

Sprigg also believes that parents should determine whether or not their young girls get the vaccine -- that it should not be mandatory. Mandating the vaccine might be in order if HPV was spread through blood or casual contact. But it is not -- it is spread by sexual contact. And families of young girls might best address this issue through education on behavioral issues alone, without interference from the government.

The wonder of the cervical cancer vaccine is not in question by this writer and the council he represents. But there is often a full picture that lingers behind good news and sensational headlines. And Peter Sprigg offers his take on what he believes lingers behind.