3 ms·

Nothing specific to this article, but this comes up often in medicine. Sure, you can pay to run more tests, find some things earlier (along with some false pos

by pfranz 8y ago

Nothing specific to this article, but this comes up often in medicine. Sure, you can pay to run more tests, find some things earlier (along with some false positives), but the outcomes and treatment aren't any different than if you waited for more obvious symptoms and could take a more accurate test.

hawaiianbrah 8y ago
What? An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and all that. Early detection is key in a lot of situations, so how could earlier not be better? Why wait unnecessarily?
- mbreese 8y ago
  So don't ignore symptoms, but don't go looking for them if you're otherwise healthy. Early detection of many things is important... but you don't want everyone getting screened for every disease. You'll just end up with a bunch of false positives, which will cause emotional stress and backup an already overworked medical system. By all means, don't ignore symptoms! Just don't go looking for them.
- Someone 8y ago
  The cure may statistically be worse than doing nothing. For example, prostate cancer can kill, but more people die with prostate cancer than of prostate cancer, in the latter case often with minor symptoms. Detecting it before it bothers people helps those it would kill, but subjects lots of others to testing, and those tests will initially have false positives that unnecessarily stress those it wouldn’t kill. Worse, the side effects of treatment can include incontinence and erectile dysfunction that can significantly affect quality of life for those were follow-up tests also produce false positives. Thats’s why there is discussion on whether screening for prostate cancer makes sense, and if so, for whom. See for example https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD....

3 ms·

Nothing specific to this article, but this comes up often in medicine. Sure, you can pay to run more tests, find some things earlier (along with some false pos

by pfranz 8y ago

hawaiianbrah 8y ago
What? An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure and all that. Early detection is key in a lot of situations, so how could earlier not be better? Why wait unnecessarily?
- mbreese 8y ago
  So don't ignore symptoms, but don't go looking for them if you're otherwise healthy. Early detection of many things is important... but you don't want everyone getting screened for every disease. You'll just end up with a bunch of false positives, which will cause emotional stress and backup an already overworked medical system. By all means, don't ignore symptoms! Just don't go looking for them.
- Someone 8y ago
  The cure may statistically be worse than doing nothing. For example, prostate cancer can kill, but more people die with prostate cancer than of prostate cancer, in the latter case often with minor symptoms. Detecting it before it bothers people helps those it would kill, but subjects lots of others to testing, and those tests will initially have false positives that unnecessarily stress those it wouldn’t kill. Worse, the side effects of treatment can include incontinence and erectile dysfunction that can significantly affect quality of life for those were follow-up tests also produce false positives. Thats’s why there is discussion on whether screening for prostate cancer makes sense, and if so, for whom. See for example https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3/full https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD....