Brilliant breakdown of this screening paradox. The overdiagnosis piece really changed how I think aboutit since my dad went through unnecessary prostate biopsies that turned out benign. Risk stratification seems like the smart middle ground here, but I dunno if most people understand theyre not actually "high risk" just because they hit a certain age. Population-wide screening sounds good in theory until you look at the actual cost-benefit data.
If the cost of national screening programmes, and follow-up treatment, care and medications, are so economically unviable, then perhaps what is needed is a very wealthy benefactor to provide significant funds to resource these? Does anyone come to mind? Is there anyone who's family have benefitted greatly over many years from the NHS and the care it provides - someone who has such immense personal wealth and who owes much to the nation for its support and who benefits themselves from a very generous public purse?
I always look at the credibly of the person attempting to give me advice - I don't usually take it unless I have appointed the advisor and then fiduciary duty comes into play.
I find Harding Centre Fact Boxes https://www.hardingcenter.de/en/transfer-and-impact/fact-boxes to be a useful source of credible information, which may form a part of your decision. It also shows the over treatment. There is no easy answer, except perhaps don't open the box, because once opened it will not close.
Would be interesting to see who suggested this public presentation, probably the same who got Stephen Fry, Chris Hoy etc to take a public stance. Looks to me to be Prostate Cancer UK who are taking a prominent stance . Personally, I don't find it helpful and wrongheaded, but it will raise their profile and subsequent donations
Brilliant breakdown of this screening paradox. The overdiagnosis piece really changed how I think aboutit since my dad went through unnecessary prostate biopsies that turned out benign. Risk stratification seems like the smart middle ground here, but I dunno if most people understand theyre not actually "high risk" just because they hit a certain age. Population-wide screening sounds good in theory until you look at the actual cost-benefit data.
Excellent explanation, thank you.
If the cost of national screening programmes, and follow-up treatment, care and medications, are so economically unviable, then perhaps what is needed is a very wealthy benefactor to provide significant funds to resource these? Does anyone come to mind? Is there anyone who's family have benefitted greatly over many years from the NHS and the care it provides - someone who has such immense personal wealth and who owes much to the nation for its support and who benefits themselves from a very generous public purse?
I always look at the credibly of the person attempting to give me advice - I don't usually take it unless I have appointed the advisor and then fiduciary duty comes into play.
I find Harding Centre Fact Boxes https://www.hardingcenter.de/en/transfer-and-impact/fact-boxes to be a useful source of credible information, which may form a part of your decision. It also shows the over treatment. There is no easy answer, except perhaps don't open the box, because once opened it will not close.
Would be interesting to see who suggested this public presentation, probably the same who got Stephen Fry, Chris Hoy etc to take a public stance. Looks to me to be Prostate Cancer UK who are taking a prominent stance . Personally, I don't find it helpful and wrongheaded, but it will raise their profile and subsequent donations