With the odds of about 1 in 2 people getting cancer at some point in their lives, why isn’t it protocol for everybody to get screened for cancer of all types more often? Like maybe every few years starting at the age of twenty? It seems most times it get caught is when somebody is complaining of a symptom, often times too late.
In: Biology
It depends on how complicated the test is. If it’s something that can be checked for with routine blood work, like prostate cancer for example, then there’s really no downside to doing it regularly at any age. Some stuff is a lot more complicated to check for. If you want to get checked for colon cancer you generally have to get a colonoscopy done and that is a very invasive procedure that you have to prepare for and there are limited resources for everyone to get those done. Also if you live somewhere like the US you might have to pay for it. Since it’s rare to get that kind of cancer before age 50 they won’t check you for it before that age unless you have a family history of it or are having symptoms that can’t be explained by a more likely cause. Same with breast cancer. Unless you find a lump or have a family history they aren’t going to make you do a mammogram regularly until you get to a certain age. They are painful and expensive. It’s all based on doing a risk benefit calculation. How likely is it to actually be cancer and is it worth doing an invasive test? It’s kind of like home security. People will generally lock their doors because it’s simple to do and there’s no real downside to doing it. But most people don’t take more intense steps like putting bars on their windows or installing expensive home security systems because it’s kind of a hassle. They only do it if they have a good reason to (bad neighborhood, bad experiences, lots of valuables in their house, drugs, etc)
Latest Answers