I can't think of one. Hopefully there is -- if not, it needs coining. Your friend is wrong, though, if this extra information was "cheap" to obtain (caused no

I can't think of one. Hopefully there is -- if not, it needs coining. Your friend is wrong, though, if this extra information was "cheap" to obtain (caused no harm to the patient and was low cost). The argument used is that extra testing causes needless treatment, in the end causing more harm than good (we'll call a treatment "costly" if it has a large opportunity cost or causes harm). For the MD you mentioned, the test could cause people to "do worse" because either the test is harmful or the MD's use of its results is harmful. If the test is harmful, then it probably shouldn't be administered unless other evidence suggests it's necessary. If it's the MD's use fo the results that causes the harm, then it just means the MD should use the results differently. If the problem is the MD's reasoning, then one possible source of error is in giving a much higher prior probability to the patient's having the disease, or an ignorance of what, e.g., a "bad" result actually implies. In the case of the PSA test, it looks like the fee-for-service model is leading many doctors to ignore the relationship between a high PSA result and the probability of the patient's dying from prostate cancer, in addition to ignoring the harm that will be caused by performing a biopsy or by any further treatment. Perhaps more malpractice lawsuits that focus on needless treatment would put a dent in this problem ...