Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Devin Ryder's avatar

There are always trade offs. The important thing is to recognize them, make them clear, and help individuals decide what is best for them based on their unique situation given the costs and benefits. Standard of care ruins this possibility by forcing clinicians to practice according to a "one size fits all" and defensively to avoid liability. Both of which, of course, ignore individual patient needs in favor of unrelated interests.

Expand full comment
Thérèse Ralston's avatar

Scans are a scary trade-off, that almost sound like a revenue raiser in the USA.

Unfair and costly to patients.

Potentially deadly to patients.

Coercive to GPs and specialists.

Contrary to the old rest and recover, come back and see me next week, we will wait and see how it goes approach of 40 years ago.

The relationship between cancer and scans seems a bit like the unnecessary increase in caesarean births, so there's no damage to the woman's vagina.

Booking in for a caesarean means they can miss going through the extreme pain of a full labour in a more natural vaginal birth, in what male partners often view as a wrecking ball to a women's pleasure garden.

It seems to me there's a lot of unnecessary procedures and tests in treatment today, excluding immunisation.

I honestly believe that immunisation is the single most beneficial health intervention in the past 80 years. Saving the world from measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, TB, and the impairment of polio has been brilliant. Vaccinations have also prevented millions of deaths from Covid, pneumonia, influenza, shingles, and other harmful disorders.

Let's hope Trump and lower sidekick Kennedy don't slam the breaks on vaccines in the crazy cost cutting, Making American Billionaires Even Richer Project 2025 disasters as well.

That would take the health of all Americans back 60 years on health.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts