Reply to comment

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Group Discussion
Our group discussed the meaning of why scientific evidence for less testing has suddenly occurred. We were interested in drawing parallels between the needs of society versus the needs of the government. For example, what role does the recession play in fueling this scientific research? One can’t help but notice that less testing equals less money spent in the long term by the government. People should make themselves aware that the government may not be looking into their best interests. In fact people should be concerned that medical science can be influenced by the needs of the government.
Another issue is the way in which these articles addressed the degree in which females need to test themselves for cancer. Our group came to a consensus that it would be a very uphill battle to get people to change their original mindset from “testing more” to “testing less.”  Not only will this new line of thinking meet with resistance but what are the larger wide scale ramifications of such thinking? Like death, the appearance of cancer is unpredictable. If one person goes for a check-up every two years fine the less testing method has been implemented. But now what happens if in between that time for another test something appears? Scientists understand that there are different types of cancers that exist.  Some of these are curable when found in the early stages. What kind of medical advice can doctor’s standby when they willingly give patients advice that has the potential to put them at risk for a curable illnesses? We need to divide the advice given to people the same way scientists are grouping cancer. It’s important to recognize that some people are going to need more treatment than others or require closer examinations if such an illness runs in their family. When you group everyone together that’s when the problems start because the people who begin to deviate from the standards set in place are the ones that suffer.
The overall question of these two articles comes down to how responsible should science be for the well being of each individual? In one respect, every person is perfectly capable of going as many times as they want, to be checked out for breast cancer or prostate cancer.  But we as a society recognize that the urging of a breast cancer rally or the discouragement of new scientific evidence can easily persuade or dissuade many. When you take into consideration how science is a constant changing pool of information is it wise to put all our faith into science or should we base our knowledge off of tried and true methods? Some people go to the doctor for every little ache and pain while others refuse to see a doctor. Are there really any hard facts today to say how and why one person is healthier than the other? The true is science is never 100% correct because the people who compose their theories are flawed themselves. The scientific community never reaches a large mutual agreement until there is no shadow of a doubt about the overall consequences. Is it ok that in the meantime people are forced to gamble with their lives and that of their loved ones? Two years, two weeks or two days between testing matters little if scientists are still unsure about the results of their own findings.