5 ms·
Having "enjoyed" a colonoscopy recently, I looked into this option, but the upside of a colonoscopy is that if they do find polyps, then can usually take care o
by gilbetron 6y ago
Having "enjoyed" a colonoscopy recently, I looked into this option, but the upside of a colonoscopy is that if they do find polyps, then can usually take care of them right then and there. Plus, they can also look for other things, and generally react to what they find in real time.
Unrelated side note: I did this all during the US election week, so that was a fun few days of stress and weirdness!
- BitwiseFool 6y agoI heard from a nurse that the more gross, uncomfortable, or invasive a test is, the more accurate and useful it will be.
- nickff 6y agoThe common counter-point is that more invasive tests are more likely to find issues, but that's not the same as being useful. A very controversial test is the (highly invasive) pap smear. I don't take a firm view on the subject, but it does seem to be a complicated subject with valid points on both sides. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pap_test#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pap_test#Effectiveness
- darkerside 6y agoThis makes economic sense. If an invasive test is not useful, it will no longer be performed.
- biotechiscool 6y agoUnless it is highly profitable
- MartianSquirrel 6y agoIt's not a problem you face often with a single payer system (or anything similar)
- coldtea 6y agoOr some 'recipients' enjoy it for their own reasons...
- darkerside 6y agoIt is unlikely to be profitable if there is no demonstrable benefit
- unixhero 6y agoSure. But some might fuck you up.