←back to thread

279 points bookofjoe | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mikert89 ◴[] No.44609276[source]
The big secret is that they could detect cancer very early in most people, but the health care companies don't want to pay for the screening. You can pay out of pocket for these procedures. I was told this by a cancer researcher

EDIT:

Adding these caveats:

1. There is a ton of nuance in the diagnosis, since most people have a small amount of cancer in their blood at all times

2. The screenings are 5-10k + follow up appointments to actually see if its real cancer

3. All in cost then could be much higher per person

4. These tests arent something that are currently produced to be used at mass scale

replies(7): >>44609315 #>>44609327 #>>44609340 #>>44609391 #>>44609453 #>>44609460 #>>44609781 #
daedrdev ◴[] No.44609460[source]
Doing this could be actively worse for you and society based on the false positive rate. Testing and accidental unneeded treatment carry very real risks that could lead to net suffering and more death or damage if enough people are tested.
replies(1): >>44609499 #
mikert89 ◴[] No.44609499[source]
This is a collectivist opinion on something which is very personal
replies(3): >>44609534 #>>44609661 #>>44614602 #
daedrdev ◴[] No.44609661{3}[source]
Would you take a test if doing so statistically increases your probability of death?

Is it moral for a doctor to give a test they think is going to increase someone's chance of death.

replies(1): >>44610281 #
1. twothreeone ◴[] No.44610281{4}[source]
That's just wrong. Taking a test doesn't do anything to the data-generating process, your chance of death is 100%. The test merely informs your posterior about the timing of the event.
replies(1): >>44610932 #
2. rscho ◴[] No.44610932[source]
The timing is pretty important to most people, and is actually the whole point of taking the test in the first place so the generating process and the test are not independent. See ?! What you said is just wrong too ! ;-)