NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
IIll and Uninsured in Illinois
March 14, 2009 at 1:29 amThere’s an overall health-policy question — does screening save more lives than not screening? And then there’s an individual question — will early detection save _my_ life?
This segment didn’t address the differences very well. And the trouble with the health-policy view is that it treats statistics, not people.
The Publisher
March 14, 2009 at 9:52 amIll and Uninsured,
I agree with you. And that is why it is unfortunate that Dr. Welch wasn’t given more time to address what is really his usual stump speech – that informed shared decision-making is the key.
He would not say that no one should be screened nor that everyone should be screened. These decisions require that informed consumers weigh the tradeoffs and make an informed decision along with their caregivers.
It’s difficult to explain nuance in a 5 minute segment. The Today Show should have devoted at least an entire half hour to the topic. And why not? They’re on for several hours every morning.
The Publisher
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like