The drugs used to counteract bone thinning can increase the risk of complications and poor healing after dental treatment, especially extractions, hence it is best to get any that might be needed done first. A general point, not particular to the previous poster.
(snip rest)
As I understand it, the ?smear? tests check for blood, which can show positive for other reasons, some of which clear up themselves, so they repeat tests to see if it one of these or something which hasn?t cleared up. Obviously not a reason to ignore a positive result.
Sorry to hear that. I hope they can fix it etc.
Look after yourself.
I'd rather my doctor advised on that. I've had too many experiences of incorrect self-diagnosis, fortunately none too serious.
My current doctor, probably the best I've had, is quite happy to get any valid concerns investigated and then discuss.
It is only in the past few years since moving into the city area that I've used the buses regularly. I often used to trip crossing the road from one stop to the other and it took a while to realise that the kerbs had been raised at bus stops which meant mistiming the step onto the road.
One person's safety feature = someone else's safety hazard.
In general, doctors are best placed to give advice. True there are ones which make errors etc but, on the whole, I?d trust a doctor over some misguided, self opinionated, self taught expert who thinks doctors are always wrong etc.
The doctors I?ve been most pleased with are the ones who tell it like it is. For example- we will try this first, because it usually works.
Maybe that's why there is less screening for older people as there are too few to affect the stats.
Which is a very long way from ?Take / do all the tests you can?. Glad you actually agree with me.
Tim
Fraid so.
Prostate.
And routine colonoscopy screening past a particular age.
Doctors certainly are not always wrong. But there seem to be some things that infect the psyche of vast numbers of doctors.
A specific example:
It is well known that people who suffer from Graves disease, hyperthyroidism caused by an autoimmune process, can and do sometimes end up with bone thinning (or whatever term you want to use).
Many doctors treating hypothyroidism fall into the trap of thinking that they absolutely must avoid thyroid hormone levels at the higher end of the reference range in order to avoid bone thinning. Even to the extent of under-treating patients by reducing doses. And under-treating can have many, many unpleasant effects.
Trouble is, in Graves the thyroid hormone levels can be multiples of top of range. For example, top of FT4 could be 18, and in Graves you might see 60 or more. In treating hypothyroidism, it would be unusual for the levels to be any more than very slightly over range, say 18.5 or 19. (And that can be due to having taken a thyroid hormone tablet shortly before a blood test.)
There simply isn't any evidence that treating to around top of range causes bone thinning.
Further, there is evidence (some anecdotal, some research-based) that hypothyroidism itself can cause bone thinning. That is, both low and *very high* levels of thyroid hormones can result in bone problems.
Finally, even if there were a risk, it should be the patient's choice. Informed consent is fundamental.
Ah, so you think I meant 'trawl the Internet for all the tests available and book yourself on as many as you can'?
Crazy, who would do that (other than to see if the symptoms were known / common as a starter before going to the doctor).
Plus, you know you have been canoeing on the canal and are aware of Weil's disease and were aware the symptoms of having that appeared about the right time. Do you tell the doctor all that or leave him to assume it's just a cold ... or see if he asks if you might have been near rats piss? If you tell him, how is it different to a Google search (again, as a starting point)?
Crazy.
As they all should ... but do you prompt them with anything you are aware of that may have been contributory to the symptoms you are seeing (as an additional investigation option else it might distract them from their own diagnosis?) or see if they work it out themselves .... before it's too late? 'Right, you seem to have the flu, go home and rest ...'
You know they are looking into AI symptom diagnosis now? ;-)
Cheers, T i m
No it isn't, if you we able to consider the context (and you obviously weren't).
Given I made the statement in the first place, I'm glad you now understand what I meant.
The 'bigger issue' here was persons unsure / unwilling to take the tests offered.
"Knowing when there is unlikely to be any appropriate and available treatment, and there is nothing else tyo be done, has few benefits. Which is why I am still unsure whether or not to go for testing."
'You can manage what you can measure (even if it's only an idea of what time you might have left). ;-( [1]
Cheers, T i m
[1] The few weeks my stepdaughter had between diagnosis and death was much longer than she might had she been in a bad car accident or fall. Knowing it was only likely to *be* 'a_few_weeks' gave her the opportunity to get things in place in time.'Knowing' may not have been nice (for her or us) but it did give her / us some power over the situation, much more so than had she gone to work that morning and not come home.
Yes, it certainly is the reason for that.
as there are
That?s not the reason.
Prostate screening is dirt cheap. It is not introduced because biopsy and "curative" surgery probable cause severe harm to many more men than those whose life is saved. And fewer lives are "saved" than one might think because many men with cancer found late when symptomatic survive with hormone treatment untll they are killed by something else. So, no, it is not primarily cost that is the problem.
Not when the PSA test shows that you have a problem and they go on to treat a prostate problem that would not have killed you. And the treatment can produce some very undesirable quality of life downsides like incontinence and impotence.
Yes, its not just about cost, but those downsides are the reason many in the medical system suggest that routine PSA tests are not a good idea because too many do end up with biopsies and surgery for what would not have killed them with those real quality of life downsides.
And it doesn?t necessarily see hormone treatment either when the prostate problem is only visible in raised PSA levels seen in screening.
Yes, but I never said it was in fact I said it wasn?t just about cost in the next para. And its not just the very undesirable possible outcomes with unnecessary treatment either. Even just the risk that the prostate may kill you is a real downside with screening when most with raised PSA levels don?t have any symptoms and die of something else.
And you ignored the other example where routine colonoscopy with no symptoms isnt even recommended for older people in the UK with variations in the age at which it is no longer recommended.
That isnt because those older people stop getting bowel cancer.
And cost effectiveness is obviously the reason that colonoscopy and testing of turd samples isnt offered for those below a certain age.
I had three biopsies. The third one resulted in sepsis and a 10 day stay in hospital.
I eventually had another, but that (a template biopsy) requires general anaesthetic, although a lower risk of infection.
Indeed ,because mine arrived shortly before Christmas and we were not sticking to regular routines or premises I left it till after thinking it would be the same as before with several cardboard sticks. Opened it in the first week of January when all back to routine and found it was the new simple one hit version and sent it off, the reminder letter came next day.
GH
I remember playing NHS Poo sticks:-) Yes I agree the now one is much simpler. Mike
I believe they no longer send out the home test to those over 70 automatically but will send one if you request it.
GH
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.