Medical Science

[selenite0]

. . . should not be an oxymoron. But doctors are always eager to do something, without being sure if it's going to help or not. Latest exhibit is this discussion of early screening for disease causing more suffering through unnecessary treatments.

Comments

[sraun]

Why should doctors be any different from the rest of humanity? There's a strong bias in favor of 'doing something' as a reaction to any problem - see the vast majority of what the DHS has done by way of example.

[celticdragonfly.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of a Spider Robinson quote - in discussing Zen practice, something like "Don't just do something - sit there!"

[archangelbeth]

And then there's the test for histoplasmosis...

It causes the "disease" to erupt, apparently, if present.

Since it can lie dormant for years, possibly even forever...

They stopped doing it, according to the ophthalmologist.

Whew. Annoying that there's no way to check for it, but whew that they figured out to stop...

[aeddie.livejournal.com]

Why do you think they call it a medical "practice"?

[countrycousin.livejournal.com]

Lots of otherwise bright people are, should we say, isstatisticate? (well, there is illiterate and innumerate.)

My understanding is that the epidemiologists understand this very well.

And it seems to me that there have been many tests over the past couple of decades challenging various practices because they could not be shown to have a positive social effect. Lot of work still to go.

What is your take on the preventive shot/vaccination game? Supposing an immunization treatment survives the standard you reference, it is still true that, for any one individual in a population largely protected, the risks are fewer by not getting immunized. But if large numbers make this choice, there forms an unprotected population through which the disease can move, and then all those who made the choice not to immunize become at risk. And the society pays, one way or another.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

For vaccinations I think the call should depend on the relative risks of injury from the vaccine vs. danger of the disease. Unfortunately our medical system doesn't like researching the former and is unwilling to recognize improvements in the latter.

For my kids the decision is driven by the 24-doses-in-18-months prescribed schedule. We're running this huge experiment in increasing the number of shots given to babies every few years without ever doing an analysis to see how much cumulative abuse an immature immune system can take. So, since it's an all or nothing treatment in the current system, my kids are in the control group.

Previous rants on vaccines here:
http://selenite.livejournal.com/147912.html
http://selenite.livejournal.com/148625.html

[stevenehrbar.livejournal.com]

How many patients in history were killed by bloodletting? It's not like human nature has changed since then.