medical tests - are too many good for you

I've recorded it and hope to see it tomorrow. It would seem that the medics do not all agree about it.

Do you mean mammograms, Granjura?

I watched the programme. Impressed by Dr Iona Heath, former President of the Royal College of General Practitioners, saying that the NHS wasted a lot of money testing well people, for little discernible benefit, and the money would be better spent improving treatment for acutely sick people.
A doctor from America said the same thing and condemned over-testing, over diagnosis and over treatment, particularly of prostrate cancer.

I am always terrified in the run up to any routine health check and am in a state of numbness waiting for the results; in fact they hang over me almost as if I have some kind of illness.

all sorts of tests jane- not just mammograms. Did you watch the programme? Medical testing of the 'worried' well makes an awful lot of money- which would be much better used elsewhere. Tegan, this feeling of a sword of Damocles over your head was well described in the programme.

Prostate, jane. That always makes me smile. I just think stand up, then, and you'll be okay.

It was my phone wot did it jen

gj you put 'mastectomies' in your OP. Is that what you meant?

I think there are a lot of false positive results after mammograms some of which result in mastectomies. Then again so many peoples lives are saved because of them.

I can't see the NHS cutting off someone's breast who was not at particular risk.

And they wouldn't cut someone's breast off without very good reason - certainly not on the grounds of one positive mammogram result. There are other tests to prove the presence of a malignant tumour which are carried out after the initial mammogram.

no jane- that was a stupid mistake as I was distracted by something else- I do apologise. Mammograms, of course.

A mastectomy just as a result of a false positive on a mammogram sounds like overkill, and not a good use of anyone's time and skill. Mastectomies are done if the tumour is so large that a lumpectomy is not enough. At that size, I should think it is obvious when there is a need for radical surgery.

When I had a positive result from a mammogram, it was followed by an ultrasound and then a biopsy, which was closely examined for cancer cells before a lumpectomy was done, removing the tumour and a quarter of an inch of healthy flesh all round it in case some cells were starting to proliferate at the edges.

Screening for breast cancer is now considered controversial. Dr Heath referred to 'the mammography wars'. She said that for every woman whose life was saved by having had a mammogram, four were treated unnecessarily in the sense that their tumour was so slow-growing that it would never have impacted on their health. This statistic is actually quoted in the information leaflet that is sent with a mammography appointment. She said that she herself would wait till she found a lump and then seek the best possible treatment.

The opposite view, that the screening programme is beneficial was put by another senior doctor, can't remember who exactly.

I have had something show up on a mammogram on more than one occasion and it caused a fair bit of anxiety. Various follow-on tests showed that it was just calcification. But as you can imagine, I did a fair bit of worrying until the result came through, especially as my sister has had breast cancer. But I do still go to mammograms.

My first ever mammogram was so uncomfortable, that I skipped the next one which was supposed to be last year.
I am resigned to going to the next one in two years time.
Whether I am right to go to the next one, and to have missed the previous one..?

Surely the title of this thread answers itself. Of course too many tests is absurd. It is deciding which tests are necessary and which are "cosmetic" in the sense of clinicians ticking boxes or persuading the worried well that they need them that is the issue. Presumably, that is what the OP meant.

The title of the programme was actually Are health tests really a good idea? Absent which has a subtly different meaning.
As you say, some are, some aren't, and the jury's out about others.
Michael Mosley's presentation was well balanced, I thought.

I've a family member in the U.S. who seems to spend most of her life going for medical tests, she appears to have the opposite of the "Sword of Damocles" syndrome and views the tests as a form of much-wanted attention. The whole family gets a rundown of the reports, whether we want to hear it or not...

Thoroughly enjoyed the programme. I shall certainly continue with the 'pooh' test, much as I dislike it! However, I think that testing healthy people may be food for thought and hope that more studies will be made to point clinical testing at those more at 'risk'.
I subscribe to the idea that changes in lifestyle can probably do more to help the overall health of the population. It's just a question of expecting that the general population will do their best to help themselves, especially when the government seems so unwilling to tax sugar products and food that is potentially a health hazard. In some cases I do believe in the nanny state - school nurses to check children's health as was done in the past, school dentists and a more positive drive to encourage folk to eat more healthily by subsidising more healthy alternatives.

I haven't seen the programme yet. I have monthly blood tests because of medication I take. I was recently called in to see the practice nurse for "lifestyle" advice because unknown to me, anyone in our town on regular blood test is being reviewed for blood sugar levels.\

My levels show I'm moving slowly but surely towards type 2 diabetes. If my levels continue to rise, I'll be there is 3 years I was told. To say I felt irritated is an understatement. My diet is good, I walk for at least an hour a day, I'm active, not overweight and with the exception of cutting out dried fruit with my porridge and no longer eating the odd biscuit there was nothing on the list of things I was to do that I haven't been doing for years.

One of the contributors to a radio 4 medical discussion recently criticised this move to diagnose pre diabetes. In my case, ageing and auto immune conditions mean I'm at risk. Doesn't seem to be a lot I can do about it does there

Sorry, I realised if I was 40, fat and lazy a diagnosis of pre diabetes may give me a nudge to change my lifestyle.

I have been told by several people recently that they are pre diabetic. I didn't comment as to be honest I didn't know what they meant and I did wonder how they knew. They must have been tested for it. Not to upset anyone here but I do know some hypochondrics. If they havn't got a condition now, they have had it in the past or expect to get it in the future. My male neighbour's mother died from bowel cancer and he, 74, and his D aged about 50 put themselves through invasive testing, which they pay for, every couple of years.They choose to do this,it has not been suggested by a GP.

I've been checked for ovarian cancer because my mother died of it and scanned for abdominal aortic aneurism because my father died of a rutured aneurism and my sister has had a small one detected. But I don't think there are any other hereditary conditions to concern me.

I've been checked for ovarian cancer because my mother died of it and scanned for abdominal aortic aneurism because my father died of a rutured aneurism and my sister has had a small one detected. But I don't think there are any other hereditary conditions to concern me.