Sunday, October 16, 2011

From My Inbox

My friend Tim from and I have recently been discussing unnecessary tests, especially those which create opportunities for the medical profession to do yet more intrusive "procedures" which (big coincidence right?) can be looked upon as job security for medical people. We have discussed how the tests themselves could be dangerous. He being a man and I being a woman, we have different "tests" which are pushed. Colonoscopy is the one most widely used which is pushed on all of us.

I have already gone into the colonoscopy risks, Versed being at the top of the list. Sedation is very risky! Then there are perforations, infection, false positives and false negatives. Tim sent me some of the articles I put up recently about the prostate tests. I got this one today about mammograms. Funny about this... The things I have been saying about the efficacy of random or routine screenings, the use of radiation on sensitive breast tissue, and the RISK of developing cancer as a result of irradiating breasts are borne out in this scientific study.

Even Computer Technology Can't Help Mammograms

I find it very odd that a layman such as myself can see the risk involved with "simple screening tests," when the medical community doesn't seem to notice! Is it because it's simply their job to demand these tests as a way of making sure that we remain in the system? Are medical people taught that they are Gods of the universe and that they MUST order these tests regardless, without reason and without thinking? Why don't THEY (medical community) think about risk v. benefit? Are they taught to ignore risk and focus only on the supposed benefits? Why is that? Are they taught that there ARE no risks? Are they told that the risks are subordinate to their desire to perform tests? Are they taught that the INDIVIDUAL risks are to be ignored in favor of GROUP risk? Who compiles the adverse events for these "tests?" The medical community, which has a vested interest in performing "tests" on everybody for anything, even without a medical reason for it? Does anybody care about the adverse events? Should we patients demand that courses on "unintended consequences" be taught to medical people?

Come on medical people THINK about what you are doing! Think about the possibility of harm when you order tests. False positives, radiation poisoning, unnecessary surgery, unnecessary strain on patients minds and pocket books, the POCD, PTSD and other problems associated with the sedation and g/a drugs... FOR WHAT? That isn't a rhetorical question. I want to know what percentage of people are actually helped or saved by these procedures. (real ones, not inflated or subjective or projected benefits.) Balance that percentage against the possible harm of the "tests" themselves! How many people develop problems FROM the tests? How many are subjected to additional procedures to find that it was all a false alarm? Isn't that part of a medical oath or something "First Do No Harm?"

No comments:

Post a Comment