I think that advanced technologies in medicine are helping to improve long-term health outcomes. It’s not a huge surprise that there is a possible danger of radiation exposure involved with medical technology such as the CT scan (we’ve known about X-ray radiation for years). But when considering the various uses of the procedure (a common one being to discover tumors in the body) further steps can be taken to treat the condition, which could have the outcome of an improved state of health. On the other hand, there are certainly cases where these same procedures produce no result and there is no beneficial long-term health outcome. If you ask a family dealing with the possibility of a tumor or cancer, and tell them that a CT scan would help provide a more precise diagnosis, but it would involve some unsafe radiation exposure, most likely they would go ahead with it anyway. It is a bit like when I used to hold my breath before eating my vegetables: it may taste bad, but it’s good for you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with John. At a point, it depends on what time of condition you have and ultimately weighing out the cost/benefit of receiving the treatment, even if it may put you at risk for something else. For instance, if someone has AIDS and a new machine comes out that may possibly somehow save their lives, they will probably give it a shot. In these instances, the desire to live most definitely outweighs 'possible' side effects, because no matter how grim those effects may be, they are hopefully not death.
ReplyDeleteI feel that advanced technology will improve long-term health outcomes because scientists are working in directions that we once were never capable of exploring, but there are always pros and cons to this. I think whoever decides to delve into these experimental treatments understands that they are placing themselves at risk.
However, if we are strictly talking about CT scans and the potential of one's doctor ordering them. In that case, I strongly feel that it is the physician or staff's duty to inform themselves of the risks in order to adequately inform patients, especially those of lower SES.
I agree with Christina's view that depending on the severity of someone's health condition, experimenting with new treatments may be the most realistic option.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do feel that United States may be one of the only developed country that does not invest enough money or resources into alternative medicine. There are many countries that have a "leg up" on our health care that heavily rely on options such as acupuncture or simply living better lifestyles.
This may go back to the fact that our country does not spend enough of our resources on preventative care.
I think John has touched on a great point about when it comes to your family or yourself, you would accept that risk of radiation exposure. We even recommend CT scans during pregnancy in order to diagnose certain maternal health conditions. This comes with a known risk to the fetus, yet as physicians and the women themselves find this risk to be acceptable in order to diagnose their own medical condition.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, one CT scan in your lifetime is not going to completely change your risk for certain cancers, etc. And it may come with a very acceptable risk/benefit ratio. Even something as seemingly simple as diagnosing appendicitis is much more accurately done with CT than with history and physical exam alone or even ultrasound that has significantly less risk of radiation. Using CT scans for this purpose has probably prevented many people from unnecessary surgeries for suspected appendicitis.
I have read in the Anderson (2003) article that the US uses more technology and diagnostic tools when compared to other developed countries. However often times the other countries that use less technology and diagnostic tools have better health outcomes. Many of the diagnostic tools routinely used in the U.S. have not been around that long, and comprehensive studies seem to be lacking on the dangers versus the need to use these tools. I feel there is a need to study this subject further and evaluate the long term health effects of routinely using diagnostic tools on patients. Additionally, a future study must address weather the benefit of getting screened outweighs the potential risk factors.
ReplyDeleteI also think that there is a need to do further studies on how developed countries that use less complicated diagnostic tools have better health outcomes than the U.S. This finding brings to question if using high technology tools is truly worth the risk and cost.. If the U.S. healthcare system were to take on diagnostic models similar to countries that use less technologies but have better health outcomes, US patients may face less risk from the healthcare system in the long run. Additionally, minimizing the use of technology would decrease rising health care costs.