daveman
Diamond Member
Why The Federal Government Wants To Redefine The Word 'Cancer'
The federal government wants to reduce the number of Americans diagnosed each year with cancer. But not by better preventive care or healthier living. Instead, the government wants to redefine the term cancer so that fewer conditions qualify as a true cancer. What does this mean for ordinary Americans and should we be concerned?
On July 29, 2013, a working group for the National Cancer Institute (the main government agency for cancer research) published a paper proposing that the term cancer be reserved for lesions with a reasonable likelihood of killing the patient if left untreated. Slower growing tumors would be called a different name such as indolent lesions of epithelial origin (IDLE). Their justification was that modern medical technology now allows doctors to detect small, slow-growing tumors that likely wouldnt be fatal. Yet once patients are told they have a cancer, many become frightened and seek unnecessary further tests, chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery. By redefining the term cancer, the National Cancer Institute hopes to reduce patient anxiety and reduce the risks and expenses associated with supposedly unnecessary medical procedures. In technical terms, the government hopes to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment of cancer.
--
With respect to the definition of cancer, downgrading some conditions as no longer being cancer can and will used to justify reducing unnecessary screening tests (e.g., mammograms for women between ages 40-49). Mammograms can now detect the condition known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which would no longer be called a cancer under the new proposal.
--
I dont believe the individual scientists arguing for a redefinition of cancer are driven by inappropriate political motives. But government will soon account for 66% of health spending and is aggressively seeking to limit health expenditures. Hence, the government may have a vested interest in definitions that err towards undertreatment, rather than overtreatment. We must remain vigilant against any attempts by the government to use language as a tool of covert rationing.
Dr. Milton Wolf, a practicing radiologist who cares for patients with DCIS warns against this Orwellian possibility:
On July 29, 2013, a working group for the National Cancer Institute (the main government agency for cancer research) published a paper proposing that the term cancer be reserved for lesions with a reasonable likelihood of killing the patient if left untreated. Slower growing tumors would be called a different name such as indolent lesions of epithelial origin (IDLE). Their justification was that modern medical technology now allows doctors to detect small, slow-growing tumors that likely wouldnt be fatal. Yet once patients are told they have a cancer, many become frightened and seek unnecessary further tests, chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery. By redefining the term cancer, the National Cancer Institute hopes to reduce patient anxiety and reduce the risks and expenses associated with supposedly unnecessary medical procedures. In technical terms, the government hopes to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment of cancer.
--
With respect to the definition of cancer, downgrading some conditions as no longer being cancer can and will used to justify reducing unnecessary screening tests (e.g., mammograms for women between ages 40-49). Mammograms can now detect the condition known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which would no longer be called a cancer under the new proposal.
--
I dont believe the individual scientists arguing for a redefinition of cancer are driven by inappropriate political motives. But government will soon account for 66% of health spending and is aggressively seeking to limit health expenditures. Hence, the government may have a vested interest in definitions that err towards undertreatment, rather than overtreatment. We must remain vigilant against any attempts by the government to use language as a tool of covert rationing.
Dr. Milton Wolf, a practicing radiologist who cares for patients with DCIS warns against this Orwellian possibility:
Health care rationing takes many insidious forms but perhaps the most immoral is for the government to wage a public relations campaign designed specifically to dissuade patients and doctors from seeking available cures for cancer. They scheme to rename cancer, not to cure it, but to deny it exists. These government rationers have calculated that rather than actually treat patients with cancer, its cheaper to simply keep them as calm as Hindu cows right up to the very end.
