![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why I'm not fond of bureaucracy.
Aug. 5th, 2008 11:06 amFrom a Blog at the Chicago Tribune:
The US Preventative Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts supported by the government has issued these three guidelines for prostate cancer screening:
-- Don’t screen for prostate cancer in men age 75 and older.
-- Don’t screen for this cancer in men under age 75 with chronic medical problems who aren’t expected to live another 10 years.
-- All other men should review the potential benefits and harms of the PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test with their doctors before decided whether to get screened or not.
I've read and re-read this, and all I can see is that a group of experts has decided that if you have less than 10 years to live (statistically) that your life isn't worth that of someone who has longer to live.
One of the experts quoted in the blog post stated that because the cancers are slow-moving, a yearly test isn't necessary.
I know a lot more about prostate cancer than most nearly 30 year old women. Why? My grandfather was diagnosed with prostate cancer in his early 70s, and it went into remission after a round of chemo. It came back years later, and spread to the bone. Quickly. He was never expected to live for long after that, and defied all medical conventions simply because he's so stubborn.
While my grandfather didn't die from the cancer outright, his body was weakened from the battle... and his health went downhill rapidly at the end. He was on a constant stream of painkillers, and it certainly wasn't the way that any of us wanted him to go.
Decisions of who needs to undergo a non-surgical test to screen for cancer should be left up to the patient, and not up to experts who are clearly trying to free up medical professionals.
My rebuttal likely doesn't make as much sense as I want it to, but it pains me to think of what countless families across the US (not just the individuals being told they don't need to undergo prostate screening) would undergo if these guidelines are put into place. You try explaining to someone that the reason their grandfather/father's cancer wasn't caught until it spread to the bone and is inoperable was because his urologist didn't recommend the test because he probably wasn't going to live long anyways.
The US Preventative Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts supported by the government has issued these three guidelines for prostate cancer screening:
-- Don’t screen for prostate cancer in men age 75 and older.
-- Don’t screen for this cancer in men under age 75 with chronic medical problems who aren’t expected to live another 10 years.
-- All other men should review the potential benefits and harms of the PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test with their doctors before decided whether to get screened or not.
I've read and re-read this, and all I can see is that a group of experts has decided that if you have less than 10 years to live (statistically) that your life isn't worth that of someone who has longer to live.
One of the experts quoted in the blog post stated that because the cancers are slow-moving, a yearly test isn't necessary.
I know a lot more about prostate cancer than most nearly 30 year old women. Why? My grandfather was diagnosed with prostate cancer in his early 70s, and it went into remission after a round of chemo. It came back years later, and spread to the bone. Quickly. He was never expected to live for long after that, and defied all medical conventions simply because he's so stubborn.
While my grandfather didn't die from the cancer outright, his body was weakened from the battle... and his health went downhill rapidly at the end. He was on a constant stream of painkillers, and it certainly wasn't the way that any of us wanted him to go.
Decisions of who needs to undergo a non-surgical test to screen for cancer should be left up to the patient, and not up to experts who are clearly trying to free up medical professionals.
My rebuttal likely doesn't make as much sense as I want it to, but it pains me to think of what countless families across the US (not just the individuals being told they don't need to undergo prostate screening) would undergo if these guidelines are put into place. You try explaining to someone that the reason their grandfather/father's cancer wasn't caught until it spread to the bone and is inoperable was because his urologist didn't recommend the test because he probably wasn't going to live long anyways.
