The UK national screening committee defines screening as "The process of identifying apparently healthy people who may be at increased risk of a disease or condition"
For this seminar I have chosen to consider PSA screening for Prostate cancer. Those who have no symptoms have blood tests to measure PSA levels to understand that persons likelihood of having Prostate cancer. The is significant debate regarding the validity of using this screening technique.
Pro's
- Many cancers have been caught before metastasising due to screening.
- Many men have been put at ease regarding this relatively common male cancer on recieving negative results
Con's -
- Takes time
-artificially promotes concern from invitiation to screening to results (even after results if positive)
- False positives are common, provoking avoidable damage in further investigation
- may cause many to live longer under 'diseased' label with no improval in mortality owing to lead-time bias of screening.
Groups may advocate screening because it may have saved someone close to them, some may feel we have access to this technology so we should use it. Others may feel they can profit from such screening programmes. Others still may feel it is a good impetus for people to visit medical professionals for general review.
Those opposing may see large amounts of money as wasted, people being put in unecessary distress, unecessary further investigation and treatment, profiteering, medicalisation of normal healthy people, premature disease status labelling.
These beliefs are enacted through lobbying, protests and avoidance of screening programmes (or even medical contact)
Paper of PSA screening : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0302283812007610