 |
Cancer. A six-letter word that has changed the lives of millions of people worldwide. With the number of people diagnosed with cancer at a steady rise, it is no surprise that the rates of studies and methods done to prevent and treat cancer are at an all time high. Prevention plays a big role in cancer awareness. A test referred to as The Prostrate-specific antigen (PSA) is one the of the main cancer-screening tests used. This screening test is used to screen for prostate cancer, which affects approximately 250,000 men in the United States (Prostate Cancer Statistics). However, throughout the past couple of years, there has been an ongoing debate of whether the PSA screening test is beneficial. In a Nature’s Magazine editorial, titled “The PSA Position”, the author states that the Preventative task force has proposed that the test is actually more harmful than helpful especially when used on healthy men. However, Nick Mulcahy’s article, “Save PSA Testing and Make a Public Comment Soon, Says AUA”, disagrees with the Nature Magazine editorial by summarizing that the American Urological Association opposes the Preventative task force recommendation to ban the PSA and are in support of the PSA test as the ongoing practice of routine PSA screening (Mulcahy). In my opinion, I strongly advise that a mutual agreement is reached as soon as possible; either we continue to use the PSA test or we revise it and make it more efficient.
The Nature Magazine editorial states that PSA screening tests are not accomplishing the task that they were designed to do. The editorial’s main point is that the PSA test is actually doing more harm than good when used to screen healthy men. It even claims that a routine use of this test is a liability to public health (PSA Position). Even though this screening test is seen as a potentially dangerous preventative method, there is still a lot of doubt about abolishing its use. The editorial acknowledges that by eliminating the test, it will seem as if people who are not affected by prostate cancer do not care about people who are affected by prostate cancer and in fact are letting them die from it. The author response to this concern is, “the PSA debate must not be about the money. It should be about the health of millions of men and how to collect and judge the research that informs their care (PSA Position).
In the article, “Save PSA Testing and make a public statement soon, Says AUA”, written by Nick Mulcahy addresses that PSA tests are here to stay. His article is a summarization of Dr. J Brantley Thrasher, a spokesperson for the American Urological Association, as well as many physicians and people’s thoughts on aborting the PSA test. Dr. Thrasher makes a very valid point when he states, “in almost every country presently performing PSA screening, mortality rates from prostate cancer have declined” (Mulcahy). Even though the Preventative task force claims that the test is more risky thank effective, one cannot deny the evidence that this test has most certainly helped save lives. Dr. Thrasher also mentions that the PSA test is very informative when it comes to those who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer if it is used correctly. There have been other organizations that have joined this campaign to continue the use of routine PSA screening test including the Prostate Cancer Foundation and ZERO – a project to end Prostate Cancer.
The increase of support for both sides of this debate shows that it is far from over. I think that the Nature Magazine editorial makes a good point that the PSA screening test needs to be reevaluated if it is doing more harm than good. Cancer is such a fatal illness that can leave many people angry, bitter, and hopeless. When people who are either affected by it, or are in risk of being getting it, go get tested and come back with more questions than answers, a change has to be made of how to approach it. However, in Mulcahy article, he points out that several prostate experts have found the PSA tests to be helpful when used correctly. The test has actually shown promising evidence of decreased death rates of prostate cancer victims. When I read this specific part, it made me question whether the harmful effects of the PSA test resulted from incorrect usage. It is important to keep in mind that cancer is a very complex incurable disease. There are so many underlying factors to consider that both these articles did not get a chance to address. I’m a strong believer in the “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” motto. The more people know, the better they are prepared. With that being said, I think that it’s amazing that there is already a screening test for prostate cancer. However, if the PSA test is more detrimental than beneficial, then it should be altered but not abandoned in order to get the most effective results. In the end of the day, time is of the essence and people’s lives are at stake.
Work Cited
Mulcahy, Nick. "Medscape News." Save PSA Testing and Make a Public ‘Comment Soon, Says
AUA. N.p., 01 Nov 2011. Web. 6 Feb 2012. <http://www.medscape.com
/viewarticle/753032>.
Nature International weekly journal of science." The PSA Position. N.p., 19 Oct 2011.
Web. 6 Feb 2012<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7369/full/478286a.html>.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." Prostate Cancer Statistics. N.p., 29 Sept
2011. Web. 6 Feb 2012. <http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/statistics/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment