Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 2014 a screening found cancer in my colon. Removed. In 2017 a screening found cancer in another area of colon now on chem. Does it help to know? I would say yes due to the many decisions required.
I have mixed feelings about this. Colonoscopies are apparently big business and easy money for the medical community. I had the procedure done last month. It was impressively efficiently. They constantly herd people in and out all day. I was pretty convinced that my problem was an anal fissure, but the GI specialist wouldn't even try to diagnosis me without the colonoscopy. Even with my insurance, it will still cost me $500 out of pocket. I guess they bill the insurance over $1,000. How many jobs pay $1000 bucks an hour?
OTOH, my $500 did buy me peace of mind about colon cancer.
I get what you're saying...however, any commonly done procedure is "easy money". And no ONE isgetting $1,000 an hour. That goes for the equipment, the facility costs, the drugs/anesthesia, the nurse and any other personnel involved, and the person running the show.
It's definitely a tough call. I see both sides. In the past, I would have totally agreed with the article. But I had an uncle that had a lot of really bad bowel symptoms -- I mean to the point that it affected his quality of life and he was chained to the house/toilet.
After some other diagnostics, the GI doc recommended he have a colonoscopy (at age 74). It turned out to be colon cancer, Stage 3, resulting in surgery and a colostomy bag plus chemo. Chemo has its own problems and having a bag sucks but he felt that least it enabled him to get out and enjoy life again.
Your uncle was symptomatic. A colonoscopy was completely appropriate.
We are seeing more reference to this all the time. I think many tests that are suggested after a certain age should be measured before deciding if one should have them or not, but this is an individual decision. I had my last one last year as I was turning 80. I do not intend to have another one, but I will add, no one in our family has ever had colin cancer.
As for the article, even some doctors are no longer suggesting screening after 80. I am not sure this is anything really new. In fact, my understanding is, medicare will not pay for them just for routine screening after either 75 or 80. There has to be a reason. Of course the doctor can find a reason. I do think doctors are test crazy but for a couple of good reasons: 1-it is called legal action if something is missed and advanced medicine helping some live longer, healthier lives. We just have to decide when we have had enough.
Uhm yeah...you are against them in general, you're above the typical age limit, and you have free will - so go on about your business. Others get them or continue getting them for a variety of reasons, including well known risk factors.
Very few cancer screening are recommended post age 70 because the vast majority of cancers are slow growing and nonfatal and you'll just as likely die from other causes than that cancer at that advanced age. Of course a few will die quickly from a fast growing cancer that won't be detected - that's the risk you take. The more educated a decision you can make, the better - that means not burying your head in the sand or over-reacting.
The only issue I see is if the cancer is contained and the test cause it to break releasing cancer cells. I have heard this is also possible with a biopsy. Maybe the reason that test after test finds it might just mean that it creates the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idr591
As we continue to line up for single payer healthcare, you are going to see more and more studies saying that much of the care we are receiving is unnecessary. Less to pay for.
The tests are done as a money maker, equipment and staff on hand need to bring in the money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idr591
Sounds great in theory, wouldn't hold up in court without documentation, signatures, etc. etc. If you have a problem with doctors ordering too many tests, blame lawyers.
Not the lawyers, paying the bills at the hospital for the equipment and staff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortpes
In 2014 a screening found cancer in my colon. Removed. In 2017 a screening found cancer in another area of colon now on chem. Does it help to know? I would say yes due to the many decisions required.
I don't know, the people I know that get tested almost always have something and the more they do to them, the more things that go wrong.
It is a choice and should be a choice. An intelligent person does the research to make an informed and wise decision.
And from my point of view (My wife and I are both doctors), the public is a little lawsuit crazy. How quickly would you contact an attorney if you were diagnosed with colon cancer and your internist had decided not to send you for a colonoscopy last year because he felt it was unnecessary? Put yourself in the providers shoes.
I hear you, but I have to put myself in my shoes and live with damages often done by procedures etc. That is what I live with from complications from hip replacement now 7 yrs. It is there every day of my life, every minute. An attorney would not touch my issues as one has to be almost dead or lost a limb for an attorney to look at one's issues. Do MD's ever put themselves in the patient's shoes?
Last edited by jaminhealth; 10-17-2017 at 04:45 PM..
The only issue I see is if the cancer is contained and the test cause it to break releasing cancer cells. I have heard this is also possible with a biopsy. Maybe the reason that test after test finds it might just mean that it creates the problem.
No, biopsies do not spread cancer. The risk is theoretically there but if it happens it is incredibly rare.
There has to be an indication in order to order any test. The people who have indications tend to have abnormalities detected because of the indication they had for the test in the first place.
Your first link is an opinion from someone with no medical training who thinks colonoscopies are nasty and doesn't want one. That's fine.
His statement of the risk of the procedure is probably an order of magnitude too high.
Your second link advises non-invasive screening tests. It minimizes the cancer cases that those tests miss and does not discuss at all the fact that people whose tests are positive still need the colonoscopy.
The best way to reduce the risk of complications from colonoscopy is to choose an experienced gastroenterologist who does a lot of them.
If a test can find a serious condition when it can be more easily treated, it is certainly preventive.
I hear you, but I have to put myself in my shoes and live with damages often done by procedures etc. That is what I live with from complications from hip replacement now 7 yrs. It is there every day of my life, every minute. An attorney would not touch my issues as one has to be almost dead or lost a limb for an attorney to look at one's issues. Do MD's ever put themselves in the patient's shoes?
Do you think no MD has ever had a hip replacement?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
