Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Innovative
Also — testing saves lives. If you don’t test, many deadly or at least serious diseases are not uncovered until it’s too late, not to mention, that by then the treatments are more expensive and less helpful.

Except that if you're testing for a condition that only one person in a 1000 has, you've paid for needlessly testing 999 people to find that 1-in-a-1000 person.

How much does it cost to test those 999?

22 posted on 02/17/2012 12:59:50 PM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: DuncanWaring

“Except that if you’re testing for a condition that only one person in a 1000 has, you’ve paid for needlessly testing 999 people to find that 1-in-a-1000 person.”

And how would you feel to be that 1-in-1000 person who doesn’t get tested and might die as a result?

That’s why they are called tests — to test and FIND OUT, whether people have a particular illness or are all right.

I suppose you are against testing for breast cancer, prostate cancer, etc — since it’s negative for most people who are being tested. Let’s just have those, whose cancer could be found early by testing just go off and die — or discover it way late and spend huge amounts of money treating them, when they could have been saved by less suffering and less costly medical procedures, if their cancer would have been found early.


26 posted on 02/17/2012 1:07:52 PM PST by Innovative (Weakness is provocative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson