3 ms·
It isn't just wasted time and costs, it's a risk beyond that. If you scan any middle aged adult you will find abnormalities in their scan. In almost EVERY case
by EA-3167 3y ago
It isn't just wasted time and costs, it's a risk beyond that.
If you scan any middle aged adult you will find abnormalities in their scan. In almost EVERY case those abnormalities will be benign, but once you've found them depending on risk factors a biopsy may be required. Almost all of those biopsies will also be negative, the tiny calcification in your lung or breast isn't a tumor. The swollen lymph node isn't a sign of lymphoma. A spot on a scan is FAR more likely to be down to habitus and scanning issues than some underlying medical issue.
But if you scan everyone, biopsy everyone, you're going to end up killing some of them too in addition to the waste of limited resources.
- xwdv 3y agoWhy not simply do nothing? If you get the scan and do nothing, or you choose not to scan and do nothing, and it turns out to be something fatal, the outcome is the same: you die. The difference, is if you do the scan, you might have an epiphany about your own mortality, and live your life truly savoring every moment, instead of being blindsided and quickly dying someday.
- Auracle 3y agoWouldn’t that be largely solved by doing two scans a few months (or so?) apart? You’d see if any of those potential issues grew, or disappeared.