Cancer Screening Considered Harmful

uncleO writes: An article in today's New York Times describes two studies that measure the harm causes by early detection of cancer. From the article, "screening [for prostate cancer] often leads to what can be disabling treatments for men whose cancer otherwise would never have harmed them ... In recent years, researchers have found that many, if not most, cancers ... grow very slowly or stop growing altogether. 'We are going from an 1845 definition of cancer to a 21st-century definition of cancer,'"

Wow

[kodiaktau]

This is really important information. There has been quite a bit of stir in the industry for cancer screening and it seems that the insurers are working to drive this out too. I can see a direct benefit for the insurance companies not wanting to do this as these screenings are pretty expensive. For the doctors/hospitals this is a huge bit of income and impacts there revenue stream directly. For "consumers" there is still a huge amount of fear around these points and this causes even more confusion as th

Re:

[muon-catalyzed]

The cancer industry needs more screening, the insurance industry wants no screening.. another alien vs. predator corporate battle.

Seem treatment is the problem, not the screening.

[TheInternetGuy]

From the article, "screening [for prostate cancer] often leads to what can be disabling treatments for men whose cancer otherwise would never have harmed them ...

So because the wrong treatment is often given to sufferers it is better to stop screening? Makes perfect sense.