New media writer Jeff Jarvis, recently diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer, is writing about screening again:
"I say, thank
godscience for screening."
He's entitled to his opinion.
He is not entitled to his own personal version of the facts. He writes:
"There is a growing rumble about curtailing screening."
No. That is simply wrong. There is no move for "curtailing" screening. There are many, however, who are calling for better and more balanced presentation of the potential harms - not just the potential benefits - of such screening.
That is not curtailing. It is not rationing. Nothing would be taken away from anyone.
This kind of talk is classic fear-mongering. When Dr. Otis Brawley of the Cancer Society spoke up about the limitations of screening last week, I read where one pro-screening crusader commented that this is "another sign of Obama health care."
Wow. But I've often thought that the screening camps are as polarized as political camps. It's just that the screening camps tend to be these:
1. Those who think that EVERYONE should be screened.
2. Those who wouldn't promote screening nor deny it to anyone, but, rather, would better inform men.
Jarvis concludes his recent column:
"As a matter of statistics and odds, I know screening results in treatment that adds to costs. But it also saves lives - no matter whether we know precisely how many. I believe screening saved my life and I chose not to have been proven right by waiting.
So get your screenings, folks, get 'em while they last."
No one is taking anything away. It's not a matter of "get 'em while they last." That's absurd.