Breast cancer survivor and rocker Sheryl Crow says she conquered cancer in part due to the type of research funded by "FFANY Shoes on Sale." This Fashion Footwear Association of New York shoe sale features thousands of beautiful shoes sold at half the manufacturer's suggested retail price. All net proceeds are donated to the breast cancer cause.

If you love shoes and wish to help further the fight against breast cancer, tune in to QVC for a night of shopping on October 17 from 7:00 - 10:00 PM ET.

Over the past 10 years, "FFANY Shoes On Sale" has raised more than $16 million and sold over 950,000 pairs of shoes to benefit breast cancer research and education programs. Here's to another great year.

On Friday, President Bush re-authorized a federal program designed to help low-income women get screening for both breast and cervical cancer.

While funding has not yet been allocated for the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, the President's support for this outreach initiative is considered by many a victory in the fight against cancer.

Bush, whose mother-in-law survived cancer, says "early detection makes treatment more effective. It gives hope to patients and it saves lives."

Currently, the government spends $202 million on this program and has reached three million women who may not have otherwise received screening. With the President's new stamp of approval, the program is authorized to spend up to $275 million.

All Samantha Kuehn had on her mind when she wore her new t-shirt to school -- with the slogan save the ta-tas plastered across the front -- was her mom, who was diagnosed with breast cancer last month and just received a mastectomy two weeks ago.

But officials at Oklahoma Union High School in Nowata County are not happy about the senior student's decision to wear such a shirt to school. The moment they saw it, in fact, they sent her home. And they told her not to return until she changed the shirt.

Kuehn and her mom, Michelle Bishop, are stunned that the shirt caused such an uproar.

"I was so surprised that my shirt would cause so much trouble," said Samantha. "Other girls wear low cut shirts or belly shirts and the boys wear shirts with put downs on them and no one bothers them. My shirt isn't really vulgar or offensive at all, and it means something to me. The principal told me 'It could be taken the wrong way'."

Principal Steven Barth believes he made the right call.

"If you check the Web site, the clothing sold there is suggestive," explained Barth. "I feel for the condition of her mother, but the shirt was inappropriate to wear to school."

Kuehn and her mom plan to take the matter to a Board of Education meeting on April 11. And you can bet Kuehn will be wearing her shirt.

Visit savethetatas.com for more information on this breast cancer initiative. Sales of all clothing items -- pick your size, slogan and color -- benefit the fight against the disease.

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation recently revamped it's entire campaign landscape. There's been a name change -- Susan G. Komen for the Cure -- and an infusion of more than $1 million into advertising, and a logo redesign, and a whole slew of new slogans intended for magazines and websites and billboards and t-shirts.

These changes mark the 25-year anniversary of one woman's gift to her sister, Susan G. Komen, who lost her battle with breast cancer at the age of 36. This gift -- the now powerful Susan G. Komen for the Cure -- is most known for its Komen Race for the Cure, a nationwide fundraising and awareness campaign featuring races attended by more than one million participants.

Soon, this group may be known for even more.

Sister Nancy G. Brinker, a breast cancer survivor herself, says, "It's high time we took ownership of the strides we've made and declare our uncompromising commitment."

Brinker's declarations are flying. Some people think they are offensive. Others disagree. I won't share my opinion on this Thought for the Day just yet -- because I don't want to sway any opinions. But I'd love to hear your take on this Komen approach to stamping out breast cancer.

Think about this:

Some print and poster ads will feature a woman wearing a tank-style undershirt that says, "When we get our hands on breast cancer, we're going to punch it, strangle it, kick it, spit on it, choke it and pummel it until it's good and dead. Not just horror movie dead but really, truly dead. And then we're going to tie a pink ribbon on it."

Another ad states, "We only focus on one thing. Or, depending on how you look at it, two."

Another states, "If you're going to stare at my breasts, ... you could at least donate a dollar to save them."

There are some of us out there--diagnosed with cancer and then continued to smoke cigarettes. I was one of those people. Basically, as soon as I was told I had a very suspicious mammogram, I went out side to wait for my husband and was puffing away.

This might seem crazy to those who have never smoked or been addicted to nicotine. It seems crazy to smoke at all knowing all the damage it does but then when you have already sat in that chemo chair it becomes even more absurd.

I am writing this post to tell of my experience with quitting after being diagnosed with cancer. In the hopes it might help someone else do the same. First, I would like to point out that it would be the hardest time to quit during the first few months after being diagnosed. Your mind is not in the right state to take on such a mental endeavor.

I would not advise waiting three years like I did, but I think eventually a light bulb came on my head and said "hey, Kristi, you might actually live through this breast cancer experience so you have to quit"!

One important and major thing is that I became mentally ready. I was embarrassed that I had the nerve to light a cigarette after I had already been diagnosed with cancer. Did I want to put myself through cancer again? I did not blame myself for smoking causing my breast cancer, I will never know if it did contribute so i just don't bother myself with thoughts on that aspect. What is done is done and all I can try to do is help my body be more healthy in the future.

I have heard that reformed smokers are the worst! They tend to get on everyone--I know now why they do this. Because its really not that hard to quit. Think about what amazing things your are doing for you body -- getting rid of all those chemicals that come along with the nicotine.

It is quite difficult in the beginning, I'm not going to sugar coat it. My first night after dinner without smoking, my husband and I were enjoying a few glasses of wine on our deck. I said to him, "ok, what do we do with ourselves"? That was my time to have a smoke while enjoying my wine. It was rough.

I did have cravings of course. What I read was that a craving will last 3 minutes. Wait out those three minutes. Its doable.

I am no expert on quiting smoking. I just had to quit cold turkey and am convinced it is the only way. Using the patch or other items of that nature only prolong the inevitable.( you will have to go through withdraw eventually). Your body needs 72 hours to be clear of nicotine. That is when the cravings are the strongest. After that time period dealing with your triggers and times of day you smoke is another obstacle. Slowly weaning yourself off nicotine rarely works.

I have found a terrific website called www.whyquit.com. That is what helped me to quit. You can read reaffirming messages about how good it feels to be in a non-smoking world and enjoying more than you did when you smoked.

One thing I like that they said on the site was that if you were going to feel as horrible as you do the first few weeks after quiting for the next twenty years they would advise continuing to smoke. But it is true that after a while you don't think about it, wake up feeling better, don't stink...i can go on and on.

Take a look at the website if you feel you might be ready. good luck!

"I have a mammogram on Friday," I told my husband just two days before the test I will receive every six months for the rest of my life. The test I should not have even needed for another four years, when I hit the age of 40. The test that helped find a cancerous lump in my breast two years ago and will hopefully catch any future lumps in enough time to save my life.

The mammogram. It's a big test that hinges on one moment of disclosure from the technician who performs the procedure. The disclosure -- everything is fine or the doctor would like to see you -- predicts whether or not life goes on normally or is derailed by uncertainty. Mammograms are a big deal.

"Are you worried?" my husband asked after my announcement. I thought for a moment and then replied, "No."

For some reason, I am not worried about this mammogram. Perhaps it's because I am monitored so regularly by the medical establishment and I'm confident anything suspicious in my breasts will be caught early and treated successfully. Perhaps the routine of it all makes mammograms not so eventful anymore. Maybe I'm just coping better with the seriousness of it all, and mammograms have become one more mundane appointment that requires my presence.

It doesn't matter really. What matters is that I am calm about my mammogram, that I am not giving it serious thought, that I am free of anxiety.

What matters is that I am not worried.

There is a lot of breast cancer awareness out there. Some believe it's too much. Some say it's overboard. Some wish breast cancer could share some of the spotlight with all the other cancers -- those struggling for a little more funding, a little more research, a little more air time. Is it possible there could be more awareness for the disease that corners the market on all things pink? Yes. It's possible. And it's necessary too.

As long as women are dying of breast cancer -- in 2006, breast cancer will kill about 40,000 women in the United States -- there is cause for more awareness. And each October -- Breast Cancer Awareness Month -- breast cancer information bombards us all. Annoying as it may seem, the reminders that flow from breast cancer campaigns are truly critical. Reminders about self exams and mammograms and early detection and risk factors and new developments can save lives. They do save lives. And while we should all hope other cancers -- that are just as serious, just as widespread, just as life-threatening -- one day receive the attention they deserve, we should still not pass on opportunities to hop on the breast cancer bandwagon. There is still a lot of road to cover, a lot of progress to be made.

Hopefully, breast cancer awareness stays on the radar. Hopefully, reminders continue to keep charging at us. Day after day. October after October. Until breast cancer is a thing of the past.

It can be hard to remember when it's time for check-ups and exams and screenings. Many come just once each year and with the swift passage of time, it's easy to forget our medical to-do lists. But missing an appointment -- or even delaying one -- can lead to missed and delayed diagnoses. So remembering these easy-to-forget chores is key. And perhaps reminders are the key to remembering.

The American Cancer Society offers a free mammogram reminder in the form of e-mail message sent each year to remind women to schedule their mammograms. It takes just a moment to register with an e-mail address and a preferred month and day of the year for this e-mail to arrive. To register for your yearly reminder, click here.

The College of American Pathologists offers a free reminder service for the following appointments -- blood donation, cholesterol screening, colon cancer screening, diabetes test, pap test, and mammogram. Click here to choose one or more of these options that also require just just an e-mail address and preferred month and date for delivery.

So forget that string around your finger -- reach for your computer keyboard right now. It takes just a few keystrokes to ensure prompt testing for the health issues that if detected early, can save our lives.

Luis Carranza is just eight years old. And he is just a few years -- or perhaps a few months -- away from dying as a result of a weakened immune system due to aggressive treatment for leukemia. The same treatment that at one time brought remission for this boy also attacked his central nervous system, caused seizures, brought on terminal and irreversible brain damage, and eventually sent him into a vegetative state. Luis has traveled a rough road -- and so has his mother who illegally slipped him across the Mexican border into the United States in hopes of treatment to save her young son's life.

Guadalupe Carranza did find salvation for her son in a Texas hospital and for more than one year, Luis received chemotherapy and radiation -- and loads of love from staff and volunteers who helped care for him. Guadalupe was not always there for her son, though, because after locating helpful health care and social services, she was deported to Mexico. She tried to return on many occasions and even received assistance from doctors, nurses, social workers, and attorneys who worked to find a legal way to unite Guadalupe and Luis. But not until Luis fell into a coma did efforts pay off.

After negotiation with border and consulate officials, Guadalupe was granted a humanitarian parole visa and legally crossed into the United States on May 8. The visa allowed her 60 days -- but officials agreed to let her stay until Luis passes away. And so she stays -- by her son's bedside where he rests peacefully in a place that gave him a chance at life. A chance his mother says he never would have had in Mexico.

I was in the emergency room the other night with my three-year-old who was experiencing a mysterious leg pain that resulted from a bad case of strep throat. It wasn't serious enough to warrant swift movement from the waiting room to an actual room and we sat in a holding pattern with a crowd of other patients, some of whom were still waiting after Danny had been treated and released. I was told patients are served in the order in which they arrive but also according to the seriousness of their complaints -- which takes me back to the night I was in the ER with a fever, headache, sore throat, and sore gums. The night I was given a mask and was immediately escorted from the waiting room to a private room where doctors and nurses treated me for neutropenia -- a condition caused by chemotherapy and marked by a drop in neutrophil levels, a condition that puts chemotherapy patients at great risk for infection. This was the second time I went to the hospital for neutropenia. Both times I was admitted and treated for five days.

And so sitting in the ER reminded me about how serious chemotherapy side effects can be. And it makes me want to caution all chemotherapy patients to never dismiss the signs that the body is suffering -- to never tough it out with the hope that a good night's sleep or a few days rest will straighten everything out. Because it may not -- and the end result may be tragic.

All chemotherapy patients should be briefed by their medical teams about when to call for medical assistance. For me, a temperature of 100.4 was the magic call-for-help signal. And twice, I called for help -- once in the middle of the night. But any symptoms , and definitely a combination of symptoms, are cause enough for a simple phone call. So don't delay. Don't excuse warning signs that your body is struggling. Don't second-guess your decision to notify a medical professional about your symptoms. Just call. It could save your life.

Firefighters pull off heroic maneuvers all the time. Heat and smoke and fire are their constant companions. Emergency scenarios keep them perpetually challenged. Risking their lives is a top job responsibility. I can't imagine taking on this line of work, yet I am amazed by those who do -- for their eagerness to save lives while compromising their own. And to read today that cancer is another occupational hazard for firefighters makes me appreciate them even more.

In Edmonton, a firefighter who was praised as a hero for saving the life of a rookie firefighter in 2003 died on Saturday of job-related cancer at the age of 47 -- just two years after doctors diagnosed him with a terminal form of multiple myeloma. Clarke Stevens was expected to live for five years.

Ken Block, president of the Edmonton firefighters union said Stevens' death is a reminder of the risks these heroes take. Block says firefighters are between two and four times more likely to develop certain cancers, and Stevens is the fifth Edmonton firefighter to die of cancer since 2004.

It takes a special person to make saving others' lives a priority. To risk death in so many ways -- for the benefit of strangers -- must be the true definition of selflessness. And thank goodness for these selfless individuals who help keep the rest of us safe.

Parents may want to save their kids' baby teeth for more than just nostalgic reasons -- they may want to save them because they are rich in stem cells and the pulp tissue could provide the means to treatment for injuries and disease. BioEden Inc. is a new company out of Austin, Texas pioneering this effort that is so new some doubt science will ever catch up with the expectations of this firm. But President Jeff Johnson says all evidence indicates that baby teeth are a wonderful source of stem cells -- cells that doctors and researchers pursue for their capability of replicating and morphing into specialized cells that can be used to repair the body. Experts think baby teeth stem cells might one day be used for bone, teeth, and even nerve cell regeneration which could hold potential for spinal cord injuries and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.

Parents may find brochures in their dentist offices featuring the benefits of banking their children's teeth once they fall out. And pursuing tooth banking is no different than pursuing any other dental procedure. There are fees involved, of course -- banking fees and perhaps referral fees from dental offices -- and other considerations that each parent must weigh. Dr. Phil Hunke, president of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry and pediatric dentist for 32 years, says the idea of removing cells and freezing them holds true promise -- and he may want to bank the tooth of a child or grandchild once he learns more. Dr. Kevin Donly, a professor of pediatric dentistry, says he sees some potential but will not be banking teeth for his three little boys. He just doesn't think he's at the point where it's necessary. Another pediatric dentist -- Dr. John Updyke -- believes that if money were not an issue, all parents should bank their kids' teeth. But many young families can't afford the initial $595 and the $89 annual storage cost it requires. And without a solid scientific backing, tooth banking might not come up as a priority for many when it may take 10 years or more to even determine how useful these specific stem cells will be.

It seems like common sense to me -- that lifestyle choices can affect a person's risk for contracting cancer -- but apparently, many people are not aware of this. Or they are aware but are not heeding the advice that might just save them from this life-threatening disease. According to Carolyn "Bo" Aldige, president of the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation, in Alexandria, Va., it's not undiscovered treatments and therapies that are key to fighting off cancer -- it's likely that the toll cancer takes can be reduced by lifestyle changes and routine screenings. Aldige reports that nearly half of all cancer deaths are preventable. And she urges us to consider these facts.

• Smoking is the most preventable cause of death in the United States and causes nearly one in five deaths, killing about 438,000 Americans each year. Yet 45 million adults still smoke -- 23 percent of them men and 19 percent of them women.
• Poor nutrition, inactivity, and obesity account for one in three of the 564,830 deaths from all cancers. Experts say that excess calories cause mutations that start genes traveling down pathways that cause cells to divide out of control -- and that's what cancer is. According to Aldige, if each person could magically acquire the perfect body mass index, there would be a whole lot less colorectal, breast, and prostate cancers.
• It requires little time and not much discomfort for certain screenings that can detect cancer at an early enough stage that it can be successfully treated. There are already screenings for breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, testicular cancer, cervical cancer, and skin cancer. And soon, there may be a simple screening for lung cancer too.
• A diet rich in nutrients and vitamin supplements helps maintain health and prevent cancer.

There are some highly effective defenses against cancer -- but they require some attention and effort on the part of each individual. Not everyone will make health-conscious choices -- some for reasons out of their control (lack of access to screenings, for example) and some for reasons I personally do not understand. But maybe that's because I have already had cancer and I know that I don't ever wish for it to return. So for that reason alone, I plan to adhere to the considerations listed above. It seems like common sense to me.

At the same Atlanta meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology where the breast cancer drug Tykerb was touted as perhaps the next wonder drug, findings were also released concerning chemotherapy and end-stage cancer. It seems that many patients in the last weeks and days of their lives are receiving chemotherapy -- when it is clear that there is no hope for survival. Perhaps patients don't want to give up and so they choose to fight to the very end. I think I would be hard-pressed to throw in the towel if a doctor thought I might benefit from continued treatment. Miracles do happen.

Doctors may be part of the problem, though, according to researchers. Patients don't want to give up -- and neither do doctors. But cancer specialists report that overly aggressive treatment gives false hope and puts people though unnecessary suffering and costly ordeals when hospice would be a more effective route. The purpose of hospice -- to help people die with dignity and in comfort -- is ineffective, however, when it's not used to its full potential. A large review of Medicare records showed in 1999 that nearly 12 percent of cancer patients died after receiving chemotherapy in the last two weeks of life. This was up from 1993 -- 10 percent -- and is probably higher today. These individuals could have been peacefully preparing for death and instead were suffering through the trials of harsh treatment.

The solution -- that must be implemented by doctors -- is a willingness to accept that there is a time to stop followed by an honest conversation with the patient whose cancer has spread widely and is incurable.

Another study presented at this Atlanta meeting revealed that some patients are not being offered newer treatments that might truly save their lives. New lung cancer treatments have extended survival from 20 percent at one year to 50 percent, for example. Yet only 11 percent of doctors in one Wisconsin study would refer such patients for treatment.

It would be nice to know for sure that one life is about to end, regardless of treatment, and to know that another might be saved because of treatment. And maybe one day -- when treating cancer is an exact science -- this will be a reality.

There is no major test or screening tool or exam that reveals the definite presence of cancer in the body. There are mammograms that can detect suspicious masses in the breast and there is a blood test that might raise concerns about the health of ovaries and there are various x-rays and scans that allow doctors to peek into the intricacies of the human body -- and some tests, like the mammogram clearly do save lives -- but some tests that seem harmless can damage the psyche while accomplishing little else.

I asked my oncologist how he would know if my breast cancer returns. He said I will receive regular mammograms and ultrasounds of my breasts. And he will perform in-office exams every few months. He will complete a breast exam and will feel my neck for enlarged lymph nodes. He will listen to my lungs and feel my stomach. But largely, he will rely on me to report symptoms and signs and complaints -- because these are the true indicators that something is amiss.

I imagined myself getting a whole host of tests on my whole body to rule out that cancer is invading every part of me. But this won't happen without reason -- because some tools, like imaging tests, may detect noncancerous abnormalities and false positives that lead to unnecessary psychological stress and tests -- and sometimes even surgery. So if I develop a persistent cough that can't be controlled, perhaps my oncologist will order a chest x-ray. If headaches begin to plague me and relief is not in sight, then perhaps a scan of my head will be in order. But as long as I feel well, the assumption is that I am well. It's better for my soul this way -- to live life without the constant worry that cancer will return. And it's a whole lot more cost effective too.