Di seguito è disponibile lo snapshot della pagina Web alla data 17/05/2024 (l'ultima volta che è stata visitata dal nostro crawler). Questa è la versione della pagina utilizzata per la classificazione dei risultati della ricerca. La pagina potrebbe essere stata modificata dall'ultima molta che è stata memorizzata nella cache. Per verificare le eventuali modifiche (senza evidenziazioni), go vai alla pagina corrente.
Bing non è responsabile del contenuto di questa pagina.
How could a radio broadcast on self-examination have avoided creating misperceptions? | The BMJ
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
It is often quoted that “Where ignorance is bliss `tis folly to be wise” [1] The history of DCIS is a perfect example!
In his Opinion piece, [2] Richard Smith references his blog about DCIS written in 2011. [3] Two sentences in that blog especially repay careful thought. First: `I think that not sharing uncertainty is in some senses “lying” and a kind of abuse, particularly if the information leads a woman to opt for a treatment that she would not have chosen if fully informed.` And the second: `I found myself wondering whether we would be better or worse off if we had never invented mammography and hadn’t opened the Pandora’s box of DCIS.` I agree.
Even after all these years, millions of words and reams of data later, there is still uncertainty about the nature of DCIS, and no consensus about how to label it or how best to deal with it. It would indeed have been better if `we had never invented mammography`. But, `fully informed consent` is (still) an impossibility – as I surmised myself back in 1992! [4]
The concept of `health` and its definition have also been widely discussed. It is generally agreed that it is more than just a disease-free body. What is certain is that citizens are being made increasingly anxious by the zealous pursuit of an unattainable goal, with too much energy focussed on what might happen to the body, rather than living positively and hopefully, `warts and all`.
In his concluding paragraph [2] Richard Smith wonders how the broadcast could have avoided promoting these misperceptions about DCIS. His first suggestion, which he thought was probably the best, is the one that I would heartily endorse, i.e. not to have had the broadcast at all.
Another pertinent quote from [1]:
`Alas, regardless of their doom,
The little victims play!
No sense have they of ills to come,
Nor care beyond to-day:
Yet see how all around 'em wait
The ministers of human fate,
And black Misfortune's baleful train!`
Refs:
[1] Thomas Gray, (1716-17710. Ode on a distant prospect of Eton College.
[2] Richard Smith. How could a radio broadcast on self-examination have avoided creating misperceptions? BMJ 2024;385:q1100
Re: How could a radio broadcast on self-examination have avoided creating misperceptions?
Dear Editor,
It is often quoted that “Where ignorance is bliss `tis folly to be wise” [1] The history of DCIS is a perfect example!
In his Opinion piece, [2] Richard Smith references his blog about DCIS written in 2011. [3] Two sentences in that blog especially repay careful thought. First: `I think that not sharing uncertainty is in some senses “lying” and a kind of abuse, particularly if the information leads a woman to opt for a treatment that she would not have chosen if fully informed.` And the second: `I found myself wondering whether we would be better or worse off if we had never invented mammography and hadn’t opened the Pandora’s box of DCIS.` I agree.
Even after all these years, millions of words and reams of data later, there is still uncertainty about the nature of DCIS, and no consensus about how to label it or how best to deal with it. It would indeed have been better if `we had never invented mammography`. But, `fully informed consent` is (still) an impossibility – as I surmised myself back in 1992! [4]
The concept of `health` and its definition have also been widely discussed. It is generally agreed that it is more than just a disease-free body. What is certain is that citizens are being made increasingly anxious by the zealous pursuit of an unattainable goal, with too much energy focussed on what might happen to the body, rather than living positively and hopefully, `warts and all`.
In his concluding paragraph [2] Richard Smith wonders how the broadcast could have avoided promoting these misperceptions about DCIS. His first suggestion, which he thought was probably the best, is the one that I would heartily endorse, i.e. not to have had the broadcast at all.
Another pertinent quote from [1]:
`Alas, regardless of their doom,
The little victims play!
No sense have they of ills to come,
Nor care beyond to-day:
Yet see how all around 'em wait
The ministers of human fate,
And black Misfortune's baleful train!`
Refs:
[1] Thomas Gray, (1716-17710. Ode on a distant prospect of Eton College.
[2] Richard Smith. How could a radio broadcast on self-examination have avoided creating misperceptions? BMJ 2024;385:q1100
[3] https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/09/07/richard-smith-communicating-with-pa...
[4] Thornton, H.M. Breast cancer trials: a patient`s viewpoint. The Lancet. Vol.339.Jan 4, 1992
Competing interests: No competing interests