The whole point of cancer screening is to detect the disease early so that timely intervention is possible. Irregardless of whether advocacy groups are criticised for creating more panic than awareness and if cancer screening is statistically found to be ineffective. If only they could get people thinking and move them from a stage of learning (awareness) to mastery (actual implementation of regular self screening). The NY Times article covers several factors affecting the debate to screen or not to screen (or to advocate as such): Costs; medical risks associated with certain types of screening; the risk of spreading more fear and anxiety especially amongst younger women (breast cancer); unnecessary further testing and biopsies that can lead to scarring and finally the role of advocacy groups and government.
Dr. Barnett S. Kramer, the associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health, (which has a cancer Web site describing the potential benefits and risks of many cancer screening tests) compares mass cancer screening to a lottery. “In exchange for those few who win the lottery,” he said, “there are many, many others who have to pay the price in human costs.”
Something to think about though: Is this price much more than the cost of losing your life if you do not screen for cancer and are found to have the disease at an advanced stage? At the end of the day, decisions are made at the individual level and not really influenced by statistics. Sometimes, life's major decisions must be the simplest and perhaps advocacy groups must zero in on such simplicity to drive home their message inspite of the skeptics. Would you rather be alive even if you had to be a little anxious to begin with?
No comments:
Post a Comment