On Apr 2, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Miles Jackson wrote:
> I'm just arguing that it's better to base your health care decisions on data rather than medical claims to authority ("this treatment is good for you--I'm a doctor!").
Actually, you were arguing that screening for prostate cancer was a huge waste of resources which should be diverted to other more empirically validated interventions.
I responded that screening was an incremental path leading to a definitive diagnosis via biopsy, at which point decisions about treatment are offered. That was my experience at OHSU (Portland), which is a teaching hospital. The screening -> treatment path seemed well established, and seemed logical in terms of resource conservation.
As I said earlier, the conclusion in the abstract of the study stated that death rates for the 'screened' and the 'un-screened' were not significantly different. There could be a number of reasons for that - I didn't dig into the data at all, although the sources were listed in the abstract. I don't see how 'death rates' relate to the value of screening. Screening can lead to early detection, which is believed to be important in treating cancer.
I haven't had much experience with the medical claim to authority you describe.
martin