It is a really tricky issue because while it often is better to be "safe than sorry", it is generally unnoted that this adage is also often wrong. There are risks to tests in that the false positive can lead to much harm and suffering that is seldom accounted for in the decision (and particularly how it is framed by providers). There are hundreds of millions of "tests" given in the United States where the "a priori" expected costs are much greater than expected benefits (I have no problem being "safer than sorry" but "so safe you will likely be sorry" is foolish).
There is also a lot of "test inflation" where extremely complicated tests are taken in order to gain a level of precision that is unnecessary (or the level of precision can in no way be matched in the treatment). The use of MRI for bone cracks/breaks is a good example of this (an X-ray will be able to fully exhaust all possible necessary treatment decisions yet MRI gives a better picture).
Furthermore, there are millions of tests performed in the United States where the result of the test is NOT and CANNOT BE an input to any further medical decision. That is, if a condition has no treatment or if a result is not conclusive of anything, providers STILL order "tests" (because they can apparently).
Jim
"Observe disease in signatures"
-T. S. Eliot
Quoting Carl Remick <carlremick at hotmail.com>:
> >From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org>
> >
> >On Aug 3, 2004, at 4:32 AM, James Heartfield wrote:
> >
> >>With a bloated health industry predatory upon fears of disease, the
> >>Democrats long-running pursuit of health-care reform only puts a radical
> >>twist on the industry's scare mongering.
> >
> >Or are you saying that Americans shouldn't worry about getting sick. What
> >do you mean by "scare mongering"? It's awfully easy to get any number of
> >illnesses -- and even easier as one gets inexorably older. And the cost of
> >getting them treated is getting higher and higher.
>
>
> What a load of b*ll*cks
>
> Young men are being bullied into examining themselves for testicular cancer.
> It’s not very dignified, says Brendan O’Neill, and may do more harm than
> good