Townhall...
When
Fighting Cancer Is Folly
By Steve Chapman
Whenever
I have a medical appointment,
my wife inquires, “What did the doctor say?” I always give the same
answer:
“She said I’m going to die.” Not because I have some fatal illness, but
because
life is a terminal condition.
Americans
might keep that fact in mind
in considering the recent news made by the U.S. Preventive Services
Task Force.
It recently recommended against routine screening of healthy men for
prostate
cancer, on two grounds: The test doesn’t save lives, on balance, and
the
treatments are usually worse than the disease.
Everyone
who gets prostate cancer will
die. But usually not from prostate cancer.
There
are lessons in the task force
report, both for individuals and for institutions that pay for
screening of
this sort. But chances are, those lessons will be ignored. In the
American
health care system, the pressures to do something, useful or not, are
more
powerful than the pressures to do nothing.
Prevention
is a totem of modern
medicine. Under his health care reform, President Barack Obama says,
insurance
companies will have to provide free mammograms and colonoscopies
because “it
saves money, and it saves lives.” He stuck to this position even after
this
same Preventive Services Task Force came out against routine
mammography for
women under 50.
This
is one of those conditions where
ignorance can truly be bliss. Most men who live long enough will
develop cancer
of the prostate. And for most of them, it will be effectively harmless.
The
idea of a harmless cancer may be
hard to grasp. Typically, though, prostate cancer grows very slowly and
has no
symptoms, and by the time it gets around to killing you, you’re already
dead.
In
the old days, countless males
walked around with a song in their hearts and a spring in their steps,
despite
the malignant cells in their nether regions. They didn’t know, and it
didn’t
matter. But then scientists invented the PSA test, doctors started
using it,
and men by the millions found out they had prostate cancer.
Worse
yet, they -- or, rather, their
doctors -- proceeded to do something about it, namely surgery. When
physicians
wielding sharp instruments start removing stuff down there, the
endeavor has
definite drawbacks, such as sexual and urinary dysfunction.
What
it doesn’t have is definite
benefits. A 2004 study found that for every 48 men who undergo
operations for
prostate cancer, only one will live longer as a result. But half will
suffer
permanent side effects affecting a certain cherished organ. Other
studies are
even more damning, finding that screening had zero effect on the death
rate.
How
can that be? Several reasons: The
test often yields false positives, it can’t tell if the cancer is truly
dangerous, and surgery doesn’t always work. A lot of patients get
treated for
cancers that won’t kill them, and others get treated for cancers that
will kill
them anyway.
Richard
Ablin, a scientist at the
University of Arizona College of Medicine, discovered the enzyme that
the test
picks up. But he wrote last year in The New York Times that PSA
screening is “a
hugely expensive public health disaster.”
Some
20 million men get the test each
year, to find out something that will almost certainly do them no good.
We
assume that knowledge is always a boon. But this time, it isn’t.
The
prevailing approach to prostate
cancer illustrates our collective disregard for medical expense. Some
$3
billion a year is spent in this country for PSA screening, with
Medicare,
Medicaid and the Veterans Administration often picking up the tab.
That
doesn’t count the cost of the
roughly 85,000 surgeries done each year on cancerous prostates, or the
expense
of treatment for the side effects that often ensue. The federal task
force
didn’t factor finances into its recommendation. But the rest of us
ought to.
Unfortunately,
it’s hard to picture
any politician demanding that the federal government stop burning cash
for
tests that are more to be feared than welcomed. As we learned from the
uproar over
Obama’s alleged “death panels,” many Americans think when it comes to
medical
care, more is better and less is an atrocity.
But
maybe when this new information
sinks in, men will realize they will be better off telling their
doctors to
dispense with this test. Or, to borrow a phrase: Don’t touch my junk.
Read
this and other columns at
Townhall
|