3 ms·

Not just that, but neither GP nor anyone else in this thread seems to be mentioning the mental health implications of constantly screening for life threatening

Not just that, but neither GP nor anyone else in this thread seems to be mentioning the mental health implications of constantly screening for life threatening diseases. For me, and many others I am sure, this would be bad. My quality of life would suffer tremendously, to the point of likely substantial loss of mental function. And I am definitely not one of these “we all die someday” types. Far from it. It’s just that if you’re prone to anxiety, especially the hypochondriasis variety, the picture is much more complex than thinking of yourself as a server hooked up to monitoring.

jacquesm 5y ago
Yes, that's a very important point. Even regular checks for cervical cancer or breast cancer can be a huge stress factor, especially in the period just prior to the test and in the waiting period until the results are in, and even more so if the test yields a false positive.
- mrtnmcc 5y ago
  Is the problem not so much the testing, but that most current treatments for cancers are so crude? If you have a relatively asymptomatic cancer, the treatments (chemo, surgery, proton beams) and psychological stress of discovery could be worse (statistically) than letting the body naturally take care of it. This probably depends very much on the cancer ( e.g., some Thyroid cancers might be better left alone). If our best treatment for fixing a harddrive was to hit it with a hammer, then maybe we'd also conclude monitoring for minor bit errors in data centers is unwise too.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Fair point: if we had a completely non-invasive cancer treatment then that would be a game changer (I made that some point in an earlier comment far down in the thread). And in that case it would lead to improved patient outcomes. But the current regime of tests+treatment options does not in the general case - and there are quite a few exceptions that mostly have to do with genetics - lead to improved outcomes.
goodpoint 5y ago
> mental health implications of constantly screening for life threatening diseases ...to be contrasted with the mental health implication of living with the knowledge that you are *not* being tested and that cancer can grow undetected for years. That, if anything, is a very good reason for anxiety.

jacquesm 5y ago

Yes, that's a very important point. Even regular checks for cervical cancer or breast cancer can be a huge stress factor, especially in the period just prior to the test and in the waiting period until the results are in, and even more so if the test yields a false positive.

mrtnmcc 5y ago
Is the problem not so much the testing, but that most current treatments for cancers are so crude? If you have a relatively asymptomatic cancer, the treatments (chemo, surgery, proton beams) and psychological stress of discovery could be worse (statistically) than letting the body naturally take care of it. This probably depends very much on the cancer ( e.g., some Thyroid cancers might be better left alone). If our best treatment for fixing a harddrive was to hit it with a hammer, then maybe we'd also conclude monitoring for minor bit errors in data centers is unwise too.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Fair point: if we had a completely non-invasive cancer treatment then that would be a game changer (I made that some point in an earlier comment far down in the thread). And in that case it would lead to improved patient outcomes. But the current regime of tests+treatment options does not in the general case - and there are quite a few exceptions that mostly have to do with genetics - lead to improved outcomes.

goodpoint 5y ago

> mental health implications of constantly screening for life threatening diseases ...to be contrasted with the mental health implication of living with the knowledge that you are *not* being tested and that cancer can grow undetected for years. That, if anything, is a very good reason for anxiety.