After a week of learning about cancer and watching three very sad video clips about cancer, I thought this article was perfect for this week. The problem of unintentional harm is too big to ignore. If harming patients in the process of trying to improve their health were a disease, it would be the number three cause of death in the United States. Have screenings for cancer gone too far? Is it worth it have all these screenings to detect cancer? Why is over-diagnosis and over-treatment so out of control? Is more medicine always the right choice? Will women have more negative effects from having a yearly mammogram to detect cancer than they would without the test? What about you? Would you have the test? If cancer runs in your family, would you want to know if you were at risk? Are you better off not knowing that you might develop cancer and living life to the fullest? Can you find any examples to illustrate unintended harm, over-diagnosis or over-treatment?
The link to the article is below. Please read the article and make your own opinion. Think about the questions that I have posted above. Your scholarly response is due Friday, March 7th.
Makary, Marty. "The Cost of Chasing Cancer." TIME. March 10, 2014, page 24.
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2166761,00.html
Medical treatment--for ages--has always been a controversial subject. In the modern world we live in, prices are skyrocketing, especially in medical care. For certain people, getting surgery, although it saves their life, could lead to an initial financial crisis. As mentioned in the article, it would therefore be best to cut away the wasteful aspects of medical treatment in any way so that, as a whole, society can pay less for themselves to live. This is the problem discussed in this article, as it seems that our society is prone to wanting to know everything before it happens, and it may be that from these diagnosi that other problems form, such as emotional trauma or even bigger medical issues. Mammograms are even reported to not help nearly as much as they were thought to. The patient described in the article with the pancreatic cyst is a pure embodiment of the problem in our society: we want to know, but once we do know, it is not for the better and we wish we hadn’t known. He should not have gotten the screening, but of course saying this can also cause controversial problems. If he had perhaps had a larger problem, not being screened could have possibly resulted in a fatal end; and the pure chance of this is what makes this problem a popular one to discuss. Who’s to say that, if you don’t get the test, then you don’t have the disease? Who’s to say that, if you get the test, that it will solve everything? These are the decisions that we will always play with in our minds, but in reality, nothing will change. Yes, some of the unnecessary tests that eventually end up unintentionally harming patients will be cut, but there is no chance that law will be past for patients to take or not take the test. This problem can be seen as a disease in itself, and this disease is one that will not be able to be solved for a very long time.
ReplyDeleteIf you were the CEO in charge of an insurance company, would you want your clients to take extra tests? Are you better off paying for expensive tests to see if you might get cancer or just waiting to see what happens? What do you think the insurance company would prefer?
DeleteI think that in a way the screening has gone too far because of the fact that in many cases the screening was completely unnecessary. People are so overly concerned with the idea of suffering from cancer. I know that there have been many studies done that your mental state determines a lot of your physical health. Personally, I would not go in for a screening unless it was absolutely necessary because of the harm can potentially do and the fact that it is crazy expensive. I feel like in many cases you are better off living life to the fullest and not know that you could be at risk of cancer. I found an article on benefitnet.com that discussed a Christian Scientist that was told that she was terminally ill of a cancer that they had been treating for years as a different kind of cancer. Her body was harmed in the process and she had to pay for treatments that weren't ultimately helping her. But, she survived through Christian Science treatment and was cancer free within months. From this article, I found that the simple idea of positive thinking can help you the most in these situations.
ReplyDeleteKaetlyn,
DeleteAre you a Christian Scientist? I would love to see that article.
To start off, I’d like to retract the statement I made on last week’s blog; I had said that there are two sides to medical science, the scientific side, and the emotional side that we were allowed to see through the life of Zach Sobiech. But with this article, I had to do a double take. There’s actually more to the story, it turns out. Not just the scientific and the emotional sides, but now also the ethical, corporate and economical sides. The point that Dr. Makary seems to be trying to convey here is that even from the inside of the business, he can see that doctors are getting too carried away with their work. They relentlessly test, screening after screening to hunt and kill disease, then trophy the select few cases that they detect and fix, proceeding to disregard the wake of destruction they leave behind them. It’s a far cry from ethically sound, but one might argue that it isn’t on purpose, and it probably isn’t. All these doctors want is to make us feel better… right? My assumption is that it started that way, then as these doctors get further into their careers, they realize that if they do more tests, they can make A LOT more money. In most cases, this isn’t going to be an actual conscious decision that they’re making to increase their paycheck at the expense of patients. It’d be unfair to demonize the doctors who keep us healthy just because the underlying greed of their industry drives them to take things too far. However, from the perspective of someone who has very recently been through that same position of “maybe I’m really in trouble but maybe not”, I know all too well that feeling of stressing over making a decision to undergo surgery or not. It’s an awful burden to place on someone at the expense of their mental health for something that might not help, or even harm their physical health. It’s all birthed from that subconscious greed that these doctors are getting, with the justification of “We’re going to run this test juuuust in case you’re terminally ill”. As much as I love the Jessie J reference, in modern medicine it really is all about the money. The bright side is from the looks of it, we are taking steps in the right direction, starting with informational articles like this being published. As a whole, the medical industry needs to take a step back or five so the number of deaths caused by chemotherapy overdoses doesn’t override the number of deaths from the cancer they’re trying to fight off. We need to stop getting ahead of ourselves and start analyzing what is truly helping and hurting us. This is a good first step.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that doctors feel that it is about the money or the patient? What do you think President Obama would think with his new health care reforms?
DeleteI always knew that there are treatments for cancer that cause more harm than good, but this article does shock me. It never crossed my mind that if this were considered a disease, unintentional harm done by testing, it would be number 3 cause of death in our country. At first it seems like a good idea to take a test every year to determine if you have cancer or other various diseases, but the effects in the long run are not worth it. If these tests are as dangerous as this article is saying, there is more risk of a person developing cancer or another disease by screening. Also, in this age money is becoming a huge struggle for many people, and to waste it on something that can possibly cause your death it impractical. The reason that would persuade me to not get tests done every year is the effect it will have on me mentally. Just as it happened to the patient, I would constantly be terrified of the possibility of having cancer, and I would make myself sick. If I believed I had the chance of getting cancer, I would never be able to live my life the way I want to. Though the future is scary and uncertain, I believe that not knowing what is going to come is much better because then you can live without regrets and stop wishing you had the guts to do something. This article just proves that going crazy to stop a problem that hasn't even happened may just increase the chances of this problem of occurring in the future. If people don't go in for that many screenings, they can live a some what longer life, and they can devote what ever time and money they have to do things that will make them happy, not stress them out.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, from this article's news, I would have to say that cancer screenings have gone a bit too far. If we keep screening patients out of fear, what good will that do anyone? Cancer is a tough illness to fight off, and it is important that we keep screenings to a minimum if we want to lower the risk of unintended harm. In general, over-diagnosis and over-treatment are out of control due to society's own personal fear of malignant illnesses. Given the primary goal to suppress any illness as much as possible, doctors will do whatever it takes in order to achieve that goal; at the same time, due to having such a heightened anxiety towards these illnesses, there is no doubt as to why there is an inflation. With treatment, more medicine is not necessarily the right choice because more problems can emerge. With medication, it can have both short and long term side effects, and the severity of symptoms such as seizures, depression, pain, and many others may not turn out to be for the better. As for mammograms, I believe that there would be more negative effects by not having the test because even though there might be a more increased risk of obtaining an illness due to the screening, the fact that is only once a year ends up proving that it long run, cancer can be found at its early stages if it has developed. Personally, I would take the test because due to my family having a history of cancer, it is better to take the steps that I can in order to decrease this risk rather than find out years later when it may already be too late. Either way I could still live life how I desire, so by being aware of my risk of developing cancer, that will only provide even more motivation to live life to the fullest. Based on this article, the examples of mammograms, screenings, and cancer treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy can illustrate the ideas of unintended harm, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment. Mammograms and screenings help draw how we may over-diagnose cancer as chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy can all induce unintended harm towards a patient through a weakened immune system and physical appearance. Most importantly though, if any of these treatments are misused, there is a high possibility that patients are over-treated, even though the case may not need to have anything of the sort. Cancer is a deadly disease, and it is extremely difficult to fight off, yet with the anxiety and fear that is surrounded around this disease, doctors may really just be causing more issues than necessary.
ReplyDeleteReading this article did not change my mind in the fact that there is no such thing as too many screenings. I understand why people may feel this way, but even if your not prone to cancer, you should still get tested. My resigning being that cancer is so unpredictable. I do believe it is worth it to check everyone, because you never know. All of the drama and over exaggeration about cancer is good in my mind because by the way I see it, is if you can prevent it, then prevent it! Cancer is really really hard to be-rid of once you get it or once it develops. The medicines I don't believe should be over used, but only used when needed, because some of them are nasty. I believe that having a mammogram every year once you turn 18 is an excellent idea. The testing should not be minimized. If my family were prone to cancer, I would probably get checked for cancer for the smallest details. I am a perfectionist and a hypochondriac. It is better to be safe than sorry. A general example of how treatments can be basin situations is chemotherapy. Chemotherapy assists in the extermination of cancer cells. The catch is that it doesn't just kill cancer cells. It also kills other kinds of cells. An example would be your hair. Those cells are killed after a chemotherapy injection.
ReplyDeleteMedical treatment has always be an arguable topic. Especially as of late with more newly discovered treatments that haven't been studied as much. To me is seems kind of dumb that people get screened often for cancer. Today even if doctors find a cyst on an organ its not always bad. People and doctors sometimes can't tell that though until its removed and they can examine it. Personally I wouldn't get screened for cancer unless I felt sick or ill. If i had cancer and a doctor gave me two options, the first option is an older more tested treatment with very little or no side-effects but a not so high success rate vs. a new treatment with a higher success rate and a couple side-effects, I would rather have the older more tested treatment. To me it just seems better and more thoroughly tested and less of a risk. If that didn't work however, as a last resort I might try the newest treatment but it may be more harmful than better.On another note I do think that it needs to be tested by some people so we can discover what the pros and cons of this treatment is and if it would be worth the time and money to further develop this treatment.
ReplyDeleteCancer is a tricky subject. It is such a deadly and incurable sickness, that what are we supposed to do about it. Should you spend millions going through processes that may not even work, or just let the cancer consume you. My friend Becca's older brother works at a cancer research facility in Maryland, trying to find a cure to osteosarcoma. And I know that he is getting paid ALOT of money to tinker around with medicine that might save someones life. The question to bring up, is who is paying him? The patients. I read a book about this topic actually. I forgot the title, but this girls mom was diagnosed with cancer. They went through so many pricey treatments that they ended up loosing their house, the mom passed, and they went bankrupt. Is it all worth it? I cant say thats a question we have to answer, because we arnt in the position where a loved one is dying. When someone who is near and dear to you is dying, you will do everything you can to save them. So I dont think we can limit the amount of pricey procedures, because we cant put a price on life.
ReplyDeleteGreat job! This reminds me of those Master Card commercials where at the end of the commercial something is "priceless." Life, hope and love are definitely all "priceless."
DeleteI think that getting too many tests, or screenings may not be necessary at all. People are paying a lot of money to get tests that they don’t need done. Sometimes, the tests can make you sicker from the radiation or unnecessary surgery. When I read that if the process of trying to improve your health was a disease, it would be the number 3 cause of death in the US, it made my stomach turn. So many people are dying because of tests that they didn’t even need. Because of these unnecessary tests, people worry themselves sick with self-diagnosed illnesses that they may not even have. They are so anxious about all the horror stories that they may hear. I do think that having annual tests can also be a big help. If you have a mammogram and they found something, it could potentially save your life. I just think that unnecessary screening could do more harm than help.
ReplyDeleteAt one point, doctors were recommending that all women over 40 get a mammogram every year, but I think the guidelines have now changed to every other year. What do you think?
DeleteAs the saying goes "Ignorance is bliss". People shouldn't get screened because it can be physically and mentally. Often times, the screening reveals that nothing is wrong but the screening itself gives harm. Then you have problem where none existed. If cancer runs in your family, in can be smart to be screened, but even then you should keep it to a minimum. People getting tested for cancer just because someone in their family had it is unsafe and unnecessary. Another point is it can cause mental turmoil. The decision of leaving a tumor or other potentially dangerous thing or getting it removed is enough to stress anyone out, especially when it costs a lot of money and can cause more damage. Screening can help, but doctors and people have to be more careful with them.
ReplyDeleteNew experimental treatments are often very controversial, and it can be rough in situations like cancer where people are at such a risk of death, screening does seem like the only way that we can catch it in time but if I had cancer I would much prefer the tried and true even if it didn't have as high of a success rate just because it would mean that I wouldn't have to go through having ridiculous side-affects... it just seems like less of a risk. Of course if it didn't prove to be effective then I would go on to the more experimental work after weighing the side-affects. It would be good though to test the new treatments on patients in this way to see if it would even worth the time and money put in to making this treatment better.
ReplyDeleteI think screenings for cancer are a good thing because cancer is becoming an over common disease that needs to be caught early. Over diagnosis is out of control because they want to stop the cancer before it becomes terminal. Cancer is taking so many lives and its good to be proactive. I think overdosing of medicine needs to be handled more carefuly, and needs to change by changing the amount to the strength. Women would not be effected negatively by yearly mammograms because you'd rather be safe than sorry. I would, and will when I come to age get the test because I do not want to find out a few years later that I have had cancer for more than 1 year and its spread. I think that an example of it is chemo therapy, because it kills more than just the cancer cells, and makes you more sick before you get better.
ReplyDeleteCancer is arguably the most feared disease in the U.S. All you have to do is listen to the news for 30 minuets and you will hear something about a new theoretical treatment or something researchers just found out caused cancer. With all of this media hype no wonder so many people get over scanned and over diagnosed. Cancer is an awful disease. So many people die of it every year. But i would rather wait until the doctors were 100% positive of the existence and type of cancer to get a very expensive treatment than pay for a risky treatment before I was even sure it was cancer. Being human, doctors may feel the need to diagnose something as cancer for fear that if they said it wasn't cancer, the patient dying would be their fault.
ReplyDeleteScanning for signs of Cancer is of the utmost importance and is necessary if we value our lives. Costly treatments and the testing of theories and studies are worth it when put into retrospect. Speaking from experience, I know exactly what it's like to lose a loved one to Cancer. My best friend, the only best friend I'd ever really had in my childhood, passed from Rhabdomyosarcoma. Life is a gift that no worldly object can replace. The treatments she experienced allowed for her and I to be together for an augmented amount of time that I wouldn't replace for the world. No matter the cost, life should be cherished and protected.
ReplyDelete"Overscreening" for medical diseases can have many dangerous side effects. These tests take both an emotional and physical effect on the patients. A yearly mammogram or other test will not prevent cancer, and most women are able to detect a dangerous lump in their breast with or without a mammogram. Most tests are truly unnecessary and, I know from personal experience, can cause a lot of worry. In the case of the man with the pancreatic cyst discussed in the article, thinking you might have a deadly disease could possible be worse on your health than actually having one. It reminded me of the "placebo effect" in the opposite way. The man believed he had a pre-cancerous cyst, and in the end he developed his own type of sickness due to his emotional hysteria. 180,000 deaths because of unintended medical harm is absolutely absurd. However, there are definite benefits to testing, especially with certain types of cancer. I think the bottom line is we should reduce the amount of tests and procedures preformed, not stop them altogether.
ReplyDeleteI think that screenings are a good thing. Until they are overdone. People have to go to multiple screenings every year to check for cancer. Catching cancer early is an amazing thing. But the worry that people go through is outrageous. I know that many people in my family have cancer, but i’m not that worried. If I had a doctor appointment every other day I would start to get very anxious. This is what’s wrong with so many screenings. They get people all worried. Then if they find something out of place the patient gets more worried. And like the patient in the article it is harmless, costing them a lot of money and worrying. I think that screenings have gotten out of control and need to be cut back.
ReplyDeleteI think if you know cancer runs in your family you should have annual tests to make sure you don't have cancer.Would you rather have annual tests and catch cancer early or not have tests and find out you only have a little while to live. If cancer doesn't run in your family you shouldn't worry about it as much. No matter what you should always appreciate life and live to the fullest.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I was shocked to find out that the 3rd most common cause of death is accidentally harming a patient in the attempt to improve their health. There are a lot of risks to screening; first, if you don't actually have cancer, than you just wasted a huge amount of money. The article states that the treatments have a chance of damaging your body, and in the long run it can cause other diseases. Screening is good, but only to an extent. Also, the emotional trauma that a patient goes through when the doctors merely suggest that something is wrong is immense. This can lead to paranoia and a negative effect on mental health, and I believe that mental health is just as important as physical health. Overall, I would not recommend getting a screening or treatment done unless the doctors were absolutely certain that there are cancerous cells present; otherwise, I feel that this is simply a way that doctors use to get profit from their patients. I am not saying that all doctors are like this, but I've heard of it happening before.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the push for all of the different tests, especially considering how expensive they can be, is a little extreme. Yes, they can detect dangerous cancers before they become too problematic, but unless you have an extremely high risk factor, I feel that yearly cancer tests are unnecessary. A more reasonable alternative could be four or five years test exams to check for cancers. I also feel that over-diagnosis and over-treatment can be a problem nowadays. With how expensive these treatments can cost, many large pharmaceutical and medical companies will push doctors on treatments not for the patient’s own benefit, but for lining their wallets. If a medication or treatment exists that already works I see no need to add to it. The focus should go to finding solutions to things we can’t fix yet. I don’t see why we have to point out breast cancer specifically other than the fact that it is always the first the comes to mind when you mention the disease. I reiterate, unless your are at high risk, I see no reason for yearly tests. I’m not saying no one should ever get checked, but they could definitely do it less frequently. I myself would definitely get myself checked regularly, though, if I was at risk and cancer ran in my family. I feel like there is a delicate balance about being concerned about your welfare and the state your body is in, and realizing sometimes there’s not much you can sometimes do about it so stressing would just make things worse.
ReplyDeleteScanning should be used on all people suspected for cancer or people that are at high risk for cancer. High risk testing should not be used on someone unless previous less harmful tests proved positive. Experimental testing should never be done on a human unless they have tried all other alternatives and they are at deaths door. Rats should make the noble sacrifice of getting tested for possible new ways of curing or treating cancer. Some ,I believe, should know that they have cancer because if they were to 'live life to the fullest" they would maybe die from a cancer that could of been solved.
ReplyDeleteNo one wants to hear that they have just been diagnosed with cancer but lets be honest it happens to many many people. Although these treatments can harm you quite a bit, they are pretty much the only options at the moment. If you end up surviving from cancer it is likely that the treatment you received got you there. In the future I believe doctors and scientists will come up with much less harmful and easier treatments as technology and smarter people are produced just like we have found very simple vaccines for diseases that used to be extremely deadly themselves. I believe we should continue to use the cures that we are using for now until a trusted source finds something new.
ReplyDeleteWhen a cancer surgeon says that the cancer screenings are overdone, it raises my eyebrows. My immediate reaction was that I should never get screened for cancer and pray that nothing goes wrong, but is that realistic? Maybe it is after all. If I underwent a screening and the doctors found a tumor, I`d probably worry so much that I would get sicker. Many people believe that an individual`s mindset influences their health, and I buy into it to a certain extent. Certainly, the stress, radiation, and financial burden would not expedite my convalescence in the best scenario. My grandparents on my dad`s side both had cancer (one is a survivor and the other is not), however, they were both heavy smokers, so hopefully the cause was not rooted genetically. The idea of cancer terrifies me, but in the end, it is out of my hands. I will probably not undergo many screenings in my lifetime, but definitely a few later on, just in case. People who feel that they are at a higher risk or find a lump should definitely be screened every few years if they are comfortable with it. Until scientists figure out how to prevent cancer in the first place or successfully treat it one hundred percent of the time, there will always be an element of risk, whether we take the "safe" path or not.
ReplyDeleteCancer is a very controversial disease. There are several treatments, and all do not result only in good results. I think with any treatment you do, you face many risks. The screening in this article was used to detect the cyst. But they are arguing that the screening is a waste of money because it cannot detect if the cyst is problematic or not. But what if it was problematic? At least you would have the screening to tell you it was present inside the body. I do not think its fair to judge the screenings. They are used to point out potential issues. In my opinion, I would want to have the screenings to point out this things whether or not it is problematic or not. Anything that could change the outcome of a potential disease is worth having. Better safe than sorry.
ReplyDeleteFrom the article's standpoint, I can understand why we have this big problem looming in front of us. It is a controversial debate-- whether or not screenings should be done. To get a better perspective, I placed myself in a patient's shoes. First of all, there must be an overarching reason for getting said screening; it is not random. These tests are expensive, so why would one waste their money on it? Obviously, the patient is at risk--whatever percentage-- for cancer. So wouldn't the answer be to understand whether or not it is a bad cancer. After testing, the answer will lead one to their next step; whatever it may be. I can see that the screening process is a big hassle with a lot of money spent and time wasted, however, nothing is worst than the potential of the unknown. I do believe in health I do support the screening process since it holds the key to a life-changing answer. That takes me into another debate of whether we should get medical treatments in the first place to live life to the fullest. Boy, what a loaded question. I suppose the grass is always greener on the other side! From our medically-advanced perspective I think we can dream of contentment without the pain that comes with the fight for sickness. It proves to be a perk of having little knowledge. But on the other side, if we were without medical treatments it would be something we pursue all the more in hopes to keep our loved ones, and ourselves, from the stern grasp of pain and death.
ReplyDeleteScreening for cancer is a necessity for everyone. They check for cancerous cells and if they find them they can try to get rid of them. even though the treatments are expensive, they are definitely worth it. Life should never be neglected because of a cancer treatment being too costly. life is worth a million times more than money. life should be always worth more than anything. These screenings should be necessary to protect life. Something like that should come above anything else.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this article, yes the screenings have gone too far. Now that they are potentially killing those who weren't even close to death before is going way too far. Because this patient was so worried and distracted by the potential outcomes of the cyst and what he knew already, it just stressed him out more. I'd say that if you are trying to be cured, like the article said, it is killing more then it should. Patients rely on the scientists and doctors to gel heal them, but because of over diagnosis, scientists and doctors are potentially causing more damage then we started with, and that is just not right. Plus, the fact that we spend so much on all these treatments with our hopes set high, and in the end we come out worse than before, now that completely isn't right. People all the time will do anything for themselves or their family, and with the doctors potentially over diagnosing patients, it could lead them to spend more money on things that don't even have to do with curing the patient. Also, with telling the patient that they could possibly have cancer just puts more stress on themselves. The patients(I know I would) would get all worked up, and start saying goodbye, and start thinking "oh this is when I potentially start to die" when possibly, your tumor could not even be fatal. By telling patients this, it just makes the condition one hundred times worse then it should have been. Scientists should be reducing overdiagnosis and over treatment if they want to do the people any good, if not, its just plain wrong.
ReplyDeleteCancer is becoming societies worst nightmares, and in order to calm people down unnecessary screenings are taken place. Because of this, doctors take advantage of patients not just through screenings but through many prescriptions that do little or nothing and intact may instigate the possible cancer cells (if there are any). Although medicine is sometimes the answer to this disease, there have been people I have met who were dying and refused chemo therapy and lived. This is the case for some, but if your family had a genetic cancer that was quite frequent, then I would definitely go for screenings. It would put your mind at ease, and you have good reasons to go for the testing unlike the many people who are just filled with fear. If you did have cancer, it would help you live your life to the fullest because you know that you might die, so you would want to do as much as possible. Even Zach, who only had so much time left to live, was living like he never had it and was filled with not depression but joy.
ReplyDeleteI feel that using this money to scan for cancer is good, but maybe instead of just trying to cure it we could try to use it. I mean if we put all this money into it already we should try and learn to control it, if we could use something like this to potentially heal a patient from an accident ever faster than what normal medicine could do. Why fear what we can potentially control. Think of it, a world where cancer is no longer something we fear but something we utilize. Call me crazy, but think about it, someone had to make anti venom using venom. Why not use cancer's ability to divide cells at an impeccable rate to help. While it would obviously take a lot more money which people already think we put too much into cancer scanning, just think of what it could do for the world. I think we are putting the right amount of money into cancer screening. But also we put so much money into trying to fight what we can use. Though it will not be controlled so easily and curing it from the patient would be the easier option, just think of what we could do with that type of power.
ReplyDeleteCancer screenings are important and should be done to ensure that you are cancer free or inflicted with the disease. We are so wrapped up in trying to treat and cure cancer that we over do it and cause more hurt than help. Someone who has cancer just want to live and eliminate the disease, so they will do anything. Scientist sometimes I believe are careless and just try and find treatments or create treatments that help but also hurt. We trust our doctors to treat us and make us better. There are so many who fear cancer and will do whatever it takes to treat or make sure they don't have it. Knowing that, there are so many things being done that aren't being processed thoroughly. Cancer treatments and screenings are being rushed and overdone with less thought that its is harming people. Both patients and doctors are being ignorant to the consequences of over doing treatments and screenings.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the situation a cancer victim faces, whether it be lung cancer, or merely a benign skin blemish, the outcomes or the tragedies vary from patient to patient. Of course, it is a personal option to make the choice to have cancer screening even if it means you are more at risk even if they just check for cancer. Or you could do what you want with your body, and call it a day, since every day counts. Personally though, I would most likely not get tested for cancer unless it was causing me to live less, or be in any way alarming. Besides, isn't it worth knowing about what your facing so you can treat it before it's too late, even if you are at a moderate risk of getting a disease you are being tested for? I think it is worth it, since cancer screening has lead to saving the lives of precious people many care about, and many more we may be unaware of. I say you'd better be safe than sorry!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I don't think that the tests haven't gone too far its just that some people may not have the mental capability for them. I think that its better knowing that you can have screenings to find out if you have cancer then not knowing if you have cancer at all. I think that doctors are over exaggerating diagnoses and treatments so that they can make more money from them. I think it is worth being screened though because if you know you are at a risk for cancer then getting these screenings could provide quick treatment. I don't think that medicine is the right choice because medicine can sometimes cause more harm than help. And i don't think that the yearly mammograms aren't having a negative effect on women because it is watching for signs of breast cancer and allowing for quicker treatment if cancer is spotted, I don't see any negative effects from doing that. For me if cancer ran in my family I would get screened for cancer so i could know if I am at risk and lower the chance of getting cancer and not getting treatment until later. In my opinion getting the screenings cancer should remind you that anything can happen and you should live life to the fullest.
ReplyDeleteMolly,
DeleteWhat if a woman had a yearly mammogram and it came up with what looked like a tumor? The woman freaks out and is convinced she has cancer. After spending money on the test and the follow-up surgery, she learns that it was benign. Was it worth it?
In most cases cancer is the equivalent to the word death. When faced with certain death most people will do whatever it takes to stay alive longer. In this case, take experimental drugs and treatments to try and solve the problem that is cancer. So when the time comes people will do whatever it takes to be free of this pain and the overwhelming fear of death.
ReplyDeleteScreenings for cancer used to be thought as a necessary evil, but we learn from the article that taking to much caution can be dangerous. If you're exposed to somethingthat causes cancer to find out if you have cancer it can lead to something that can kill you it doesn't make sense. I think the best thing to do is always check for tumors and if you have one have a doctor look at it, don't expose yourself to something that causes cancer if you're suspicious of cancer.
ReplyDeletePeople live in pure paranoia. They always want to know what's going to happen, before it happens, and will stress endlessly about it. The thing about life is that no matter what, it will always end in death. People need to take note of this fact!! You cannot avoid it, so what is the point in putting it off for so long? These tests and treatments also sometimes cause more harm than help, as mentioned in the article. People lived long lives before all of these scientific discoveries were made. The selfishness of everyone, wanting to live longer and longer, is simply unnecessary! I mean when people say "I have cancer...I'm dying" they completely forget the fact that EVERYONE IS CONSTANTLY DYING. Every second, every moment that passes, we approach closer to an eternity of nothing. Life is filled with so much hurt and pain, I don't think it should be the focus. If I thought I was dying at an accelerated rate, I wouldn't do anything about it. No tests, no screenings, I would simply let it happen. The end is coming one day anyone, and I really believe that people need to stop fighting that unarguable fact.
ReplyDeleteI think that while some tests may have gone too far, others are necessary to detect tumors. There is always the question of "what if?" to contend with, the notion that if someone MIGHT have cancer, shouldn't they know? Even though the physical and mental stress of tests and treatments can be extreme, "better safe than sorry" is a good motto to have when dealing with cancer. If my mother went in for a mammogram and it turned out she had a tumor, even a benign one, I would want to know about it and the possible risks involved. However, in the age we live in, cleanliness and health is on everyone's mind. Over-testing or too much medicine can happen because doctors and their patients are afraid of a disease developing. Especially around the 1980s, over-cleanliness was big. Children got sick because their immune systems were never really exposed to dirt or disease and when they caught something, they caught it bad. Now our frame of mind has moved more into "let them experience it now", but the fear if germs is still very prevalent. Perhaps doctors should back off a bit with the tests, but we must always be aware of the possibility of cancer.
ReplyDeleteSome tests and treatment for cancer have gone too far but some are able to detect tumors that may have cancer in it. If we don't have those screenings then people will be dying not knowing what from. The treatments may not be the best but sometimes they help get rid of the cancer. By using the tests and treatments for cancer no, it helps us get a better understanding and helps us get closer to finding the cure for cancer.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the tests have gone too far. When people have cancer and know that have a high risk of dying they will do anything to try and stop it. Even if it means that they could die from the treatment they might want to do it just in case it leads to finding a new treatment that will save hundreds of other people. If that happened doctors would be able to save so many people from cancer at the cost of one life.
ReplyDeleteBe ready, i'm about to get controversial. In today's medical world I feel that the green paper in the patients wallet is often put before the persons health. Doctors will put patients through the stress of tests such as screening, that end up being pointless. While procedures can obviously be helpful, the amount of unnecessary tests run is unforgivable. The poor patient who is ill will have lofty healthcare bills ( if they have it) in the mail waiting for them, for a medical test that contributed nothing to the improving of their health. Why should we be charged for a false prognosis? I read an article ( link below) regarding Millions of people have been treated for a ¨cancer"that was not even present in their bodies. And what resulted from the treatments that were supposed to cure their bodies of this disease? You guessed it, exactly what it was trying to prevent. The benign conditions these people really had, were mistaken for a life mutation of the cells. As these false cancer victims progressed through pointless treatments they were exposed to the potentially negative causing agents that numb the bodies immune system, and attempt to rid the body of cancerous cells. Yet the bills still piled up in the mail, while the patients forked over thousands of dollars. But i'm sure you are thinking " it is not the healthcare companies fault that they are billing these people unintentionally¨ ? And you are right. All of this needless disposal of money and resources could have been prevented simply with a correct diagnosis. We should continue to use screenings to detect cancer, but only because it is the only way we have used to do so effectively. At the same time, we need to improve the methods we call ¨effective¨ so we don't create a larger problem than we are trying to prevent.
ReplyDelete#VOTTOMVP
http://alignlife.com/articles/toxicity/millions-falsely-treated-for-cancer-says-national-cancer-institute-report
http://www.access2knowledge.org/jobs-education/how-much-does-a-doctor-make/
As a person in a family where close to no stories related to cancer deaths and the treatment they underwent, I don't have to worry about things like this, more on the other sicknesses that have been passed down from generations. I think that the fight for treating or even curing cancer, has to at least slow down to a speed at which we can work efficiently. We must find out that when we put people through treatment processes like chemo or radiation, that these things could hurt this person even more.
ReplyDeleteI think that in a way, cancer screening has gone too far. In most situations, the screening might not even be worth it or necessary. Also, the expenses are extremely high, and the harm it can do to your body is also extremely high. I also am extremely controversial over all the new treatments and "cures". I think that scientists think less of the patient in that situation, and focus more on stopping the cancer, instead of hoping for a miracle. I think that scientists should figure out what works, before they test it on cancer patients.
ReplyDeleteIf i were a cancer patient, i would not test medicines that i do not understand and do not know about. Having cancer run in my family, i would want some kind of a test, but not something crazy over the top. If i found that i had almost incurable cancer, i would choose to go live life to the fullest instead of testing out crazy new medicines that might further detriment me.
ReplyDeleteAlthough i know that screening for cancer is important in trying to catch it early so it is easier to cure, i can completely understand why at the same time it can cause more problems. This article reminded me of my parents. My mom is the type of person you you have to force to go the the doctors. Her view point is ïd rather live a happy life and die suddenly than know how much time i have left¨ ( words to that effect, she still goes to the doctors if we tell her to) How ever my dad, researches medical treatments and cures and would like to know exactly whats going on and causing a problem. I think if i knew cancer ran in my family, and i most likely had it, and i knew there was no cure for it, then Id rather not get the test done and just live a happy life rather than knowing that I am going to die soon and worrying about it everyday.
Many people are too worried about cancer and if they would be affected. Screening may not be needed for many people, though life is a delicate gift I do not suggest people not get screenings if it is needed. The harm of the screenings can affect the human body negatively isn't too appealing nor is the price of a screening. My Godmother is a Christian Scientist and believes that if you do not think or pay mind to sickness, you won’t be affected by the sickness. Living life in nativity may be better physically rather than worry one's mental state of getting say; cancer. I believe letting a person enjoy life to their full potential is better than surviving and remembering what they once were capable of doing.
ReplyDeleteI think that as long as the patient is not being harmed from treatment, they should do everything they can to cure the cancer. Treatments are nothing short of a miracle, and not doing everything in their power to use these treatments is not right. I think a woman should have a mammogram every year once they turn 18 because breast cancer will be easier to get rid of when you catch it at an early stage. If I had cancer, or if cancer ran in my family, I probably would have already started getting checked for cancer. Unless there are really extreme risks to the treatment, I wouldn't question the treatments my doctors recommend. --- I turned this in on time, but it was in the grade book as an F.
ReplyDelete