Hi there
I hesitate to get involved here, remembering the old proverb - fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
What is the cost in physical and emotional trauma to the 100 people who get a false positive? A biopsy is not a risk free procedure, the psychological trauma for a young woman to be told that she might have breast cancer and needs further tests, multiplied by 100 for every woman found to have a real positive result?
I belong to a cancer group where many wish that the existing blood test for the cancer would be used as a screening tool. It is not, although it is probably as reliable as some of the other screening test that the government funds. The problem again is the number of people who have to go through a risky biopsy procedure and the psychological trauma of thinking that they have cancer, for no reason at all - a false positive. Unfortunately the evidence does not support it. Yet I am one of those that was detected with an aggressive cancer at a relatively young age. If I hadn't had the test I wouldn't be alive now.
Also no one talks about the false negatives - those that the test says do not have cancer but who actually do. When the test moves put of the safe zone for testing, then the number of false negatives can also increase.
The issue is not one of having the decision makers sit down and listen to individual stories - it is a matter for them of deciding what is best for most people. They are not unfeeling people and they do not make these decisions lightly. Most of the committee that make these decision also have people sitting on them who have had a personal experience of cancer (or in the case of other diseases, the relevant disease). Believe me these 'consumers' are not afraid to be vocal, but they also have to take note of the evidence and make decisions that try to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Regards
Sailor
An incorrectly identified mark is a hazard, not an aid, to navigation. Alton B. Moody
... View more