<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Breast cancer screening: Orac&#8217;s take</title> <atom:link href="http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/04/breast-cancer-screening-oracs-take.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/04/breast-cancer-screening-oracs-take.html</link> <description></description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:56:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" /> <item><title>By: jimeyers</title><link>http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/04/breast-cancer-screening-oracs-take.html#comment-113599</link> <dc:creator>jimeyers</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:38:38 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/04/breast-cancer-screening-oracs-take.html#comment-113599</guid> <description>If the elephant in the room is the medical-legal climate in which we live, isn&#039;t that a good thing.  Apparently you acknowledge that there are many physicians with smaller cojones who, without the current medical-legal climate, would forgo offering screening for women &lt; 50. And you also admit, for the benefit confired, &quot;it is probably worth it.Perhaps  it would be ideal if medical decision makers were driven by human factors rather than consequences, but that regretably is not the case.  Screening recommendations by policy makers balance benefit and risk well but have a more difficult time balancing benefit - risk  vs cost.  What is the value of a woman surviving rather than dying prematurely from breast cancer? What is the cost of screening the x number of women in order to save one life?When the american cancer society and most other medical organizations have gone through the gut wrenching process of making such difficult choices, surely whether the recommended policies should be followed, ought not depend upon the size of one cohones.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the elephant in the room is the medical-legal climate in which we live, isn&#8217;t that a good thing.  Apparently you acknowledge that there are many physicians with smaller cojones who, without the current medical-legal climate, would forgo offering screening for women &lt; 50. And you also admit, for the benefit confired, &quot;it is probably worth it.</p><p>Perhaps  it would be ideal if medical decision makers were driven by human factors rather than consequences, but that regretably is not the case.  Screening recommendations by policy makers balance benefit and risk well but have a more difficult time balancing benefit &#8211; risk  vs cost.  What is the value of a woman surviving rather than dying prematurely from breast cancer? What is the cost of screening the x number of women in order to save one life?</p><p>When the american cancer society and most other medical organizations have gone through the gut wrenching process of making such difficult choices, surely whether the recommended policies should be followed, ought not depend upon the size of one cohones.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 2/6 queries in 0.003 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 341/345 objects using apc
Content Delivery Network via cdn.kevinmd.com

Served from: www.kevinmd.com @ 2012-02-14 15:30:15 -->
