Reply to: Doctors Receptionists

[vetran]

She's going to have to shove her arm up a long way to reach your heart.

she could fondle my heart anytime, she was gorgeous.

[doodab]

Actually I'm in favour of screening, hope I never have to find out about finger up the backside unless its that rather attractive milf blonde cardiac specialist I had. My luck will be its done by the nice muslim chap with the beard down to his belt.

It's really not that bad. They lube you up first.

[rhubarb]

Actually I'm in favour of screening, hope I never have to find out about finger up the backside unless its that rather attractive milf blonde cardiac specialist I had. My luck will be its done by the nice muslim chap with the beard down to his belt.

The first and only time I had that done was by a very young, pretty lady doctor.
It really wasn't pleasant. For me, and most definitely not for her!
Still makes me shudder when I think about it.

[mudskipper]

Actually I'm in favour of screening, hope I never have to find out about finger up the backside unless its that rather attractive milf blonde cardiac specialist I had. My luck will be its done by the nice muslim chap with the beard down to his belt.

She's going to have to shove her arm up a long way to reach your heart.

[vetran]

Actually I'm in favour of screening, hope I never have to find out about finger up the backside unless its that rather attractive milf blonde cardiac specialist I had. My luck will be its done by the nice muslim chap with the beard down to his belt.

[doodab]

My judgement may be coloured by my piles. They are playing up a bit today.

[minestrone]

It's all about adding life to your years not years to your life.

Or summin like that.

[d000hg]

With prostate cancer an acceptable course of action is 'wait & see' as expounded by a specialist.

Prostate cancer symptoms, causes and treatments | Bupa UK

shoving a finger up 49 people's back passage once a quarter is a lot cheaper & easier than doing it to 10,000. With cameras into the prostate you can monitor the size of the mass, a Biopsy can detect type.

Is this about saving lives, or getting someone to finger your bum for free?

[doodab]

With prostate cancer an acceptable course of action is 'wait & see' as expounded by a specialist.

Prostate cancer symptoms, causes and treatments | Bupa UK

shoving a finger up 49 people's back passage once a quarter is a lot cheaper & easier than doing it to 10,000. With cameras into the prostate you can monitor the size of the mass, a Biopsy can detect type.

Whatever. If it bothers you go and get checked quarterly. I would rather not thanks.

[vetran]

The point of screening is to catch it early, because early diagnosis & treatment improves survival rates. The problem is that the test cannot tell who will go on to develop a serious problem, and if you wait and see which cancers become serious enough to require treatment you lose the benefit of early diagnosis and treatment. You may as well just wait for people to develop serious problems.

With prostate cancer an acceptable course of action is 'wait & see' as expounded by a specialist.

Prostate cancer symptoms, causes and treatments | Bupa UK

shoving a finger up 49 people's back passage once a quarter is a lot cheaper & easier than doing it to 10,000. With cameras into the prostate you can monitor the size of the mass, a Biopsy can detect type.

[vetran]

Like YOU would ever go for anything the government suggests that increases how much they tell you how to live your life. Within 5 minutes you'd be frothing on here about how insurance companies are going to access your annual checkup data, your employer demands to see the results, etc.

that would need to be legislated against yes.

[doodab]

Surely that is a failing in the treatment process not PSA screening?

A screening process should reduce the number requiring additional scrutiny to a manageable level not define a group for treatment regardless of need.

If 49 people test positive you then do additional testing and monitoring to decide which one of them require treatment. The screening means you do that on 49 people not 10,000.

The point of screening is to catch it early, because early diagnosis & treatment improves survival rates. The problem is that the test cannot tell who will go on to develop a serious problem, and if you wait and see which cancers become serious enough to require treatment you lose the benefit of early diagnosis and treatment. You may as well just wait for people to develop serious problems.

[d000hg]

yes but the sensible ones would see it as a massive improvement in our life, especially if it led to a reduction in critical illness.

Like YOU would ever go for anything the government suggests that increases how much they tell you how to live your life. Within 5 minutes you'd be frothing on here about how insurance companies are going to access your annual checkup data, your employer demands to see the results, etc.

[vetran]

If the government brought in annual checkups I'd wager many of those in this thread would be banging on about the "nanny state" and "I won't be told when to see a doctor".

yes but the sensible ones would see it as a massive improvement in our life, especially if it led to a reduction in critical illness.

[d000hg]

If the government brought in annual checkups I'd wager many of those in this thread would be banging on about the "nanny state" and "I won't be told when to see a doctor".