throwawaynotmd

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by throwawaynotmd 5y ago

   It’s not enough to say it’s harmful. How is it harmful? A blood test, for example, cannot be inherently harmful. (Okay, no more harmful than drawing blood). So it must be about what people then decide to do based on that test. That’s what
2. 2.▲
   by throwawaynotmd 5y ago

   We have a more detailed exchange going on elsewhere in this thread, with my latest comment, addressing your more detailed points, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27630947
3. 3.▲
   by throwawaynotmd 5y ago

   I should say, if you know ex ante that certain results are not worth acting on, then when you actually get those results ex post, you should ignore them just the same. So actually running a test cannot formally be the problem.
4. 4.▲
   by throwawaynotmd 5y ago

   > Many times the patient will push them for further tests and treatment (or the doctors will advocate for it to ease the mind of the patient) which leads to potential harm from unnecessary treatments. > People will ask to be treated
5. 5.▲
   by throwawaynotmd 5y ago

   The argument you’re making has always bothered me because it’s hiding the ball. If finding something that otherwise carries no symptoms is best left untreated, then the fact that you found it should make no difference to the decision. The d