• Aucun résultat trouvé

Rebuttal: Should Canadians be offered systematic screening for colorectal cancer?: NO

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Rebuttal: Should Canadians be offered systematic screening for colorectal cancer?: NO"

Copied!
1
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Vol 54:  may • mai 2008 Canadian Family PhysicianLe Médecin de famille canadien

675

Rebuttal: Should Canadians be offered systematic screening for colorectal cancer?

F

orty  years  ago,  the  World  Health  Organization  adopted  10  principles  to  guide  screening  for  chronic  disease,  including  cancer.1  These  principles  have  remained  the  criterion  standard  for  the  practice  of  screening.  In  line  with  the  philosophy  of  the  orga- nization  for  which  he  works,  Dr  Pineau  invokes  5  of  these  principles  to  justify  screening  for  colorectal  can- cer  (CRC).  Unfortunately,  he  makes  no  mention  of  the  reasons why screening for CRC is incompatible with at  least 5 of these 10 principles. 

It is high time that Canadian doctors rid themselves  of  erroneous  beliefs  about  screening,  particularly  cancer  screening.  First  of  all,  it  is  because  screening  always does harm that  it  must  be  based  on  scientific  knowledge  rather  than  on  the  conclusions  of  consen- sus conferences that are influenced by all sorts of con- siderations  that  have  nothing  to  do  with  protection  of  public  health.2  And  it  is  because  screening  always  does harm that, before we turn screening into a public  health program, we must determine that the potential  benefits  of  such  a  program  are  substantially  greater  than  the  harm  it  will  certainly  inflict.  Screening  for 

CRC still has not proven that its contribution to public  health  warrants  the  creation  of  a  public  health  pro- gram, regardless of what the directors of the Canadian  Cancer Society say.3

Dr Turcotte is Professor Emeritus of Public Health in the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine in the Faculty of Medicine at Laval University in Quebec.

Competing interests None declared

Correspondence to: Dr Fernand Turcotte, Laval University, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, 2180 Ste-Foy, Quebec, QC G1K 7P4; telephone 418 656-2131, extension 5975; fax 418 656-7759;

e-mail Fernand.Turcotte@msp.ulaval.ca References

1. Wilson, JM, Jungner G. The principles and practice of screening for disease. 

Public Health Papers no. 34. Geneva, Switz: World Health Organization; 1968.

2. Raffle AE, Muir Gray JA. Screening: evidence and practice. London, Engl: 

Oxford University Press; 2007.

3. Welch HG. Dois-je me faire tester pour le cancer? Peut-être pas et voici pour- quoi. Quebec, QC: Les Presses de l’Université Laval; 2005.

NO

Fernand Turcotte

MD MPH FRCPC

These rebuttals are responses from the authors of the debates in the April issue (Can Fam Physician 2008;54:504-6).

Debates

Cet article se trouve aussi en français à la page 677.

✶ ✶ ✶

Références

Documents relatifs

The optimal interval for screening in patients with a first-degree family history of CRC must balance the risks of unnecessary procedures and the serious implications of

1 With this statement, Dr McCormack appears to conflate the debate around dosing in the asthma action plan yellow zone with the benefits of asthma action plans themselves.. It

Dr  Turcotte’s  second  point  concerns  the  anxiety  caused  by  false-positive  screening  results.  He  neglects  to  mention  the  anxiety  and 

cause?  Given  the  bottlenecks  that  are  already  affect- ing  too  many  health  care  sectors,  how  can  we  justify  preparing  for  what  could  be 

cause?  Given  the  bottlenecks  that  are  already  affect- ing  too  many  health  care  sectors,  how  can  we  justify  preparing  for  what  could  be 

L et’s  be  clear.  We  need  to  acknowledge  at  least  one  point:  the  introduction  of  systematic  screening  for  prostate  cancer  substantially 

Our comparison of patients’ self-reported history of CRC  screening  and  physicians’  reports  showed 

The efficacy of treatment for prostate cancer is well docu- mented.  A  Swedish  study 3   demonstrated  that