Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello,


I was wondering if anyone has a recommendation for mole screening?


I grew up in Australia, I have Irish heritage (and complexion) and have spent most of my life watching my parents have various bits burnt off or cut out. Luckily, I have always worn sunblock but I think that my skin is a bit damaged. I went to a GP 2 years ago and they said that they wouldn't look at moles unless they were 5mm in size. I appreciate that the NHS is overstretched so I might need to go elsewhere for an inspection... Can anyone recommend somewhere/someone? I had a google and could only come up with private clinics that charge 250 pounds for an initial consultation. Is this normal?


Thanks for your recommendations,


Keep well,


Brigid

I would say have another go at your GP. Our GP, for all their faults, are very pro-active regarding possible skin cancers. My husband thought he had a persistent patch of eczema behind his ear and showed it to our GP, who referred him to the 2 week wait dermatology clinic at Kings. Turned out to be a Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC), which was removed within a few weeks. Since then, if my husband has any concerns about further patches, he askes the GP to refer him. So far, he has had 3 BCCs removed and is awaiting a further procedure.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...