“I believe overdiagnosis is the biggest problem posed by modern medicine,” writes Dr. Gil Welch in his new book, “Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick In The Pursuit of Health,” which he coauthored with Drs. Lisa Schwartz and Steve Woloshin.
Welch continues:
“It has led millions of people to become patients unnecessarily, to be made anxious about their health, to be treated needlessly, and to bear the inconvenience and financial burdens associated with overdiagnosis. It has added staggering costs to our already overburdened health care system. And all of the forces that helped create and exacerbate the problem – financial gain, true belief, legal concerns, media messages, and self-reinforcing cycles – are power obstacles to fixing it.”
The book hits on these themes:
* how numbers get changed to give you diabetes, high cholesterol and osteoporosis;
* how scans give you gallstones, damaged knee cartilage, bulging discs, abdominal aortic aneurysms and blood clots;
* overdiagnosis of prostate cancer, breast cancer and other cancers;
* stumbling onto “incidentalomas that might be cancer”
* how genetic testing will give you almost anything;
* how screening gives you (and your baby) another set of problems.
Ray Moynihan reviewed the book in the BMJ. Excerpt:
“A key theme here is the need to get better, clearer information to people–to get closer to the truth of the uncertainties around early detection and the potential harms of unnecessary treatment. Unlike so much promotion that passes for medical journalism, Over-diagnosed features success stories of patients who have explored the uncertainties and opted not to accept potentially unnecessary treatments.
Building processes for mandatory and meaningful informed consent into the very infrastructure of medicine could be a big win for people who don’t want to become patients needlessly–but will likely mean a rather large loss for those who benefit from treating them.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.
Ken Leebow
February 28, 2011 at 12:48 pmHere’s a 20-minute interview on NPR with the author … http://n.pr/guYbRY
It’s a very interesting interview.
Michael Kirsch, M.D.
March 3, 2011 at 6:46 amYou would also enjoy the book Overtreated, a must read for physicians and medical students. http://bit.ly/hiSfKJ
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