I can appreciate that the knowledge that one has cancer (even of a slow-moving type) is very stressful. However, I think it goes too far to say that "statistics ... should not be part of the criteria." Of course it should be part of the criteria. Being rational is almost entirely about overcoming even strong emotional responses with facts and reason, even (especially) if counterintuitive. If there weren't strong, deeply attractive psychological forces opposing rationality, then we wouldn't have to work at it so hard. It is not an easy thing to be but, in the final analysis, it actually gives one a better chance to lead a better life.
The point of Allen's post, however, was not about whether or not one should wait watchfully. That is a different issue. The point here was that screening doesn't actually lead to better outcomes. Indeed, it leads to many people (many more than "miss" a progressive cancer) needlessly having materially worse lives because they have surgery they don't need. If it doesn't lead to better outcomes, then what possible justification could there be for doing it, anymore than for anything else that doesn't lead to better outcomes (like, say, eating garlic, spinning around three times, and baying at the moon)? In addition to all the needless surgeries, imagine if all the money that went to insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies for pointless screening tests and surgeries went, instead, to treatments for sick people who could actually be helped. Now that's something worth fighting for. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== Raymond Rogoway wrote: > This is totally a personal viewpoint: > > As a prostate cancer survivor, the idea of "watchful waiting", > regardless of age is a very uncomfortable idea. When I was first dx > w/PC, the thought of something that could harm me, growing inside of > me was almost overwhelming. > > There was no hesitation in my wanting to rid my body of the cancer, > especially after I read about the course of this disorder. In > addition, I had also worked as a therapist for Hospice of the Valley > in San Jose and had worked with terminally ill PC patients. I had seen > the psychological effects of "watchful waiting." > > I was willing to undergo what ever side effects were caused by my > treatment of choice. The side effects are annoying, stressful at times > but certainly not fatal. > > The choice for treatment or non-treatment is a very individual choice > but economics and statistics do not address the psychological issues > and should not be part of the criteria. > > > > > > Raymond Rogoway > [email protected] > > > > On Mar 20, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Allen Esterson wrote: > >> Apparently conflicting reports of a recent study on screening for >> prostate >> cancer: >> >> New York Times: Prostate Test Found to Save Few Lives >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/health/19cancer.html >> >> The Guardian: Prostate cancer screening could cut deaths by 20% >> http://tinyurl.com/ddrfrr >> >> A perceptive discussion of this issue, highlighting the exaggerated >> significance of the 20% reduction figure in terms similar to Chris >> Green in >> a recent posting on another health topic, can be found here: >> >> http://tinyurl.com/d6dodl >> >> Allen Esterson >> Former lecturer, Science Department >> Southwark College, London >> http://www.esterson.org >> >> >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
