Overdiagnosis epidemic harms the mental health of patients

But what happened now, we have mass growth in autism, and it does not affect children better to make it better. We have to see a little happy population, but all we see is mental health. We did something well-intentioned, but there is no evidence that it works.

The reason for work is the act of balance between behavioral or learning problems, the only balance of helping and the lack of diagnosis is the shortcoming of diagnosis, which says a child has an abnormal brain. What does this child do to the belief in themselves? How do you stink them? How does the identity affect the formation? We thought that this would be useful to help children be useful, but statistics and the result indicates this is not useful.

You are worried about one side that is extremely exfoliating another side of diagnostics. An example of what you provide in the book applies to modern cancer examination programs that detect the disease in previous and soft stages. But so far, there is a little proof that the patients are really useful to patients.

Each cancer examination program will cause some people to be treated if they are not treated. It will always be the case. We want to make sure that we have a desperate way, the number of people who have exceeded people and people in need of treatment. However, you will have those who are more sensitive to these tests, which are more excessive. I reviewed a cochrane that if you screened 2000 women, you save a lifetime and you are treating a place between 10 or 20 women in one place. More than people you really saved are born overstained. Thus, the suggestion we have to do more than what we have to do to do more than these tests.

I think more brain scans per week and most of them show random finds. I am always a brain, I do not know what to do half of them. We just do not know how to interpret these scans correctly. We need to pay more attention than trying to detect asymptomatic diseases that never progress in the symptomatic disease.

Some cancer-prostate cancer can choose for patients, for example Waiting for a spectator more than treatment. Should this be the norm for early detection?

If you want to go for a choice and I don’t want people to go to the shows offered – you don’t have to understand uncertainty and need panic. Of course, the minute you hear that there are some cancer cells, the panic comes in and you want it and want the amount of maximum treatment. But in fact, many decisions in medicine can be slowly. There are sober waiting programs.

Before leaving for the screen, these uncertainty, before we know this uncertainty, so that these uncertainties will be positively returned to what you want to do before the test, and then you can take the time to think about it, and you can ask for a waiting program.

I think that one of the ways of solutions, “Anything other than cancer would call this abnormal cells.

Hear Suzanne O’Sullivan Wired Health In place of London Kings on 18 March. Take a ticket Health.Wire.com.