>Whether you're in a risk group for certain cancers depends on a lot of factors and you'd need to know all of those to make a weighted decision. This is not alw

>Whether you're in a risk group for certain cancers depends on a lot of factors and you'd need to know all of those to make a weighted decision. This is not always as easy as applying the general case to yourself calling it a day. It is a different topic, but I have a very strong impression that it is the norm for doctors under time pressure to apply the general case and call it a day. That is not necessarily a bad place to begin, as doctor's often say, "common things are common". I do not have a problem with that. The question then becomes whether doctors are actually skilled at analyzing contra-indications in a logical fashion. I have substantial experience suggesting the answer is N-O. Here is a paraphrase of a real world conversation my wife had with more than one doctor(!) on a different topic: Patient: "My back still hurts. I have been doing everything you suggested for 6 weeks." Doctor: "Hmmm. Can you touch your toes?" Patient: "Yes. <Demonstrating>" Doctor: "You seem fine." Patient: "No. My back still hurts. I used to be able to almost touch my elbows to my toes." Doctor: "Your range of motion is within healthy norms." Patient: "Not my norms." Doctor: "Have you tried walking every day?" Patient: "Like you suggested? Every day for the last 6 weeks, yes." Doctor: "You have what is called 'normal back pain'. Take more ibuprofen. It will eventually go away." Does someone need to go to school to accomplish this tour de force of medical reasoning? My personal opinion is that when Watson (or moral equivalent) sits next to the doctor with the patient, there will be a vast improvement in medical care. There will a dispassionate source for possible diagnoses for patient who happen to fall outside the bell curve.