The Federal Government Wants To Reduce the Instance of Cancer Diagnosis

[LowDown]

So they're going to redefine "cancer" to include fewer such diseases!

<rim shot>:lamo. Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week.

Seriously, that's what they're going to do. So, why is the federal government getting involved in defining medical terms like "cancer", "live birth", and "pregnancy"? Because the feds are going to be running the medical system, and they don't like terms that result in "overtreatment" in the case of cancer or statistics that compare poorly to other countries in the case of "live birth". It reminds me of redefining "the unemployed" so that it doesn't include anyone who has given up looking for work. Redefined out of existence! Unemployed, live births, and now tumors.

And then of course they are going to be crediting Obamacare for the resulting lower numbers for cancer diagnosis and better infant mortality. Wait and see.

 

[GottaGo]

So they're going to redefine "cancer" to include fewer such diseases!

<rim shot>:lamo. Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week.

Seriously, that's what they're going to do. So, why is the federal government getting involved in defining medical terms like "cancer", "live birth", and "pregnancy"? Because the feds are going to be running the medical system, and they don't like terms that result in "overtreatment" in the case of cancer or statistics that compare poorly to other countries in the case of "live birth". It reminds me of redefining "the unemployed" so that it doesn't include anyone who has given up looking for work. Redefined out of existence! Unemployed, live births, and now tumors.

And then of course they are going to be crediting Obamacare for the resulting lower numbers for cancer diagnosis and better infant mortality. Wait and see.

Why am I not overly surprised?

First, they decide no one can die of old age, and must have a definable cause. Then reclassify everything as a disease, so they can say people need their help.

Now, they want to change classifications, so they can say 'see we're winning the war!'....

*I'm in a particularly crabby mood today......

 

[Ockham]

So they're going to redefine "cancer" to include fewer such diseases!

<rim shot>:lamo. Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week.

Seriously, that's what they're going to do. So, why is the federal government getting involved in defining medical terms like "cancer", "live birth", and "pregnancy"? Because the feds are going to be running the medical system, and they don't like terms that result in "overtreatment" in the case of cancer or statistics that compare poorly to other countries in the case of "live birth". It reminds me of redefining "the unemployed" so that it doesn't include anyone who has given up looking for work. Redefined out of existence! Unemployed, live births, and now tumors.

And then of course they are going to be crediting Obamacare for the resulting lower numbers for cancer diagnosis and better infant mortality. Wait and see.

One needs to redefine language and the definition of words in order to show results where there are no significant results. I think it's been fairly consistent with Obama's administration, that words, calculations and definitions of things we have taken for granted in the past no longer are true. He can do that by redefining the word Cancer to mean a subset of things and not the whole as it has been done. Therefore, healthcare can see a significant decrease in cancer, and after a few years, the average person won't remember that word being redefined and politicans and healthcare providers have a victory to pat themselves on the back about. Remember we did the same thing to the unemployment calculation. As long as the media and press go along with it, it's a done deal!

 

[mak2]

I have seen patients commit suicide over an eaisly treatable tumor. This right winger outrage at everything gooberment is getting really stupid. I had not heard of this and usually keep up with my field so I will have to read more and think this through, but at first read I think it is a great idea.

What the RWers say:

The federal government wants to reduce the number of Americans diagnosed each year with cancer. But not by better preventive care or healthier living. Instead, the government wants to redefinethe term “cancer” so that fewer conditions qualify as a true cancer. What does this mean for ordinary Americans — and should we be concerned?

What it is really about:

Yet once patients are told they have a cancer, many become frightened and seek unnecessary further tests, chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery. By redefining the term “cancer,” the National Cancer Institute hopes to reduce patient anxiety and reduce the risks and expenses associated with supposedly unnecessary medical procedures. In technical terms, the government hopes to reduce “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” of cancer.

 

[Ockham]

Yet once patients are told they have a cancer, many become frightened and seek unnecessary further tests, chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery. By redefining the term “cancer,” the National Cancer Institute hopes to reduce patient anxiety and reduce the risks and expenses associated with supposedly unnecessary medical procedures. In technical terms, the government hopes to reduce “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” of cancer.

As a money saving measure?

 

[mak2]

I dont know why. But I do know this article is SPIN at best.

As a money saving measure?

 

[garyd]

Mak you're spinning like a top. Just changing the name doesn't change the course of treatment most likely to succeed. All this is about is saving the government money. Remember those death panels this is it. This is about avoiding treating people with stage three or four cancer...

 

[mak2]

No, it just isnt. There is a big difference between treating a benign tumor and stage 3 and 4 cancer. Even this highly bias article does not say or suggest that.

Mak you're spinning like a top. Just changing the name doesn't change the course of treatment most likely to succeed. All this is about is saving the government money. Remember those death panels this is it. This is about avoiding treating people with stage three or four cancer...

 

[garyd]

Mak the fact of the matter is anyone sane is going to want a second opinion before undergoing any sort of treatment for any sort of tumor. And until you get the biopsy it's damned ahrd to know whther a tumor is benign or malignant. All this is going to do is encourage people to take risks they are probably better off not taking.

 

[mak2]

What has emerged has been an appreciation of the complexity of the pathologic condition called cancer. The word “cancer” often invokes the specter of an inexorably lethal process; however, cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient’s lifetime. Better biology alone can explain better outcomes. Although this complexity complicates the goal of early diagnosis, its recognition provides an opportunity to adapt cancer screening with a focus on identifying and treating those conditions most likely associated with morbidity and mortality.

Mak the fact of the matter is anyone sane is going to want a second opinion before undergoing any sort of treatment for any sort of tumor. And until you get the biopsy it's damned ahrd to know whther a tumor is benign or malignant. All this is going to do is encourage people to take risks they are probably better off not taking.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Must be their alternative to death panels.

 

[mak2]

Over treatment of benign tomors causes more harm than good.

Must be their alternative to death panels.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Over treatment of benign tomors causes more harm than good.

I will not disagree with that. However, do you want a one-size-fits all government solution, or do you want the varied opinion of more than one doctor?

 

[mak2]

Did you read the study? Not one size fits all. If really interested this article is pretty good explanation. Overdiagnosis in Cancer I am not sure how a second opinion would complicate overscreening?

I will not disagree with that. However, do you want a one-size-fits all government solution, or do you want the varied opinion of more than one doctor?

 

[garyd]

What has emerged has been an appreciation of the complexity of the pathologic condition called cancer. The word “cancer” often invokes the specter of an inexorably lethal process; however, cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient’s lifetime. Better biology alone can explain better outcomes. Although this complexity complicates the goal of early diagnosis, its recognition provides an opportunity to adapt cancer screening with a focus on identifying and treating those conditions most likely associated with morbidity and mortality.

Trouble is that those abilities don't yet exist and may not for longer than some people have to live. Nor do we have any idea at the present time which of these possibilities is more common or if it is possible for one to morph into the other or the mechanism by which such an occurrence might happen.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Yet once patients are told they have a cancer, many become frightened and seek unnecessary further tests, chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery. By redefining the term “cancer,” the National Cancer Institute hopes to reduce patient anxiety and reduce the risks and expenses associated with supposedly unnecessary medical procedures. In technical terms, the government hopes to reduce “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” of cancer.

Gee getting frightened because you are diagnosed with cancer, how inconsiderate of those people. Maybe we should just tell them they have an ouchie and put a Band-Aid on it.

 

[mak2]

Another amazingly intelligent comment.

Gee getting frightened because you are diagnosed with cancer, how inconsiderate of those people. Maybe we should just tell them they have an ouchie and put a Band-Aid on it.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Another amazingly intelligent comment.

Get back to me when you get the diagnosis.

 

[mak2]

2 for 2.

Get back to me when you get the diagnosis.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

2 for 2.

That's 2 better than you!