Cyclist says driver who knocked him off his bike helped save his life

 regular health screening checks

Oh dear! The automatic assumption that these are a good idea, when most of them aren't. Some of them are such as bowel cancer screening, cervical cancer screening and (probably) breast cancer screening

I'd take a heart ultrasound check at a healthscreening over being knocked down by an inattentive driver, even if it means I won't make a new friend!

wtjs wrote:

 regular health screening checks

Oh dear! The automatic assumption that these are a good idea, when most of them aren't. Some of them are such as bowel cancer screening, cervical cancer screening and (probably) breast cancer screening

A lot of people would find it surprising that some cancer screening may not be a good idea, especially if they've had any contact with the severe forms of the diseases. The problem is that screening will also pick up benign or very slow growing growths that could otherwise be safely ignored (e.g. if it would take longer than the person's lifespan to become dangerous) and that puts a lot of people through stress and unnecessary medical procedures.

It's a trade-off between catching and treating the dangerous ones early enough and not performing too many unnecessary surgeries.

But it's the false positives that you get from general screening that causes unnecessary treatment that is the nasty bit, and is a reason for not doing it.

The numbers can get very large very quickly if you start screening everybody.

Stats...

I cannot comment about Breast or cervical cancer but I can about bowel having spent the last 18 months of my life being treated for stage 3 bowel cancer . The general screening process for bowel cancer normally is a poo test to detect blood whether this is the FIT test or FOBT and generally following a positive it is a follow up with a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy whilst uncomfortable and intrusive you still generally come out the way you went in or you might be missing a few polyps. I lived in Australia until aged 49 and screening takes place there age 50 I moved to England where screening starts age 60 I was diagnosed aged 56. Myself personally I would have preferred screening and I think the consensus with most bowel cancer survivors or relatives or those that didn't survive would have also preferred screening. I also understand with screening the take up rate is less than 50 percent but in most data gathered by macmillan and bowel cancer uk states that screening is an extremely useful tool in the fight against cancer. Having gone through major surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, temporary stoma and a reversal I would have been more than happy for someone to stick a camera up my backside at an earlier date if it prevented going what I went through. I suppose you could argue that if screening was a failed process then why do it ?

Cyclo1964 wrote:

I suppose you could argue that if screening was a failed process then why do it ?

It's not that screening is a failed process or even a bad idea (it's generally a good idea), but as ktache says, it's the false positives that are the problem. If you screen a chunk of the population then you're going to get a lot of false positives and you have to weigh up whether it's worth it. The problem really is that once cancer has been detected, it's difficult to know how that cancer is going to progress, so the typical response is to remove it to be on the safe side, especially as patients wouldn't know whether their particular cancer would have ever been a problem or not.

Just recently did the screening test. My advice - WEAR GLOVES!

Hopefully Road.cc will keep their finger on the pulse and report any similar stories circulating in the same vein.

Aorta have seen that one coming.