The data isn't "dirty", it's perfectly accurate. You are just using it wrong. The test can give you an objective answer like "you have a 20% probability of having cancer".
But the system doesn't weigh the cost and Quality Adjusted Life Years of treatment vs not treatment, it just defaults to treatment. This is the problem that needs to be fixed, not eliminating collecting data.
And if the patients really are the problem, then don't show them the raw numbers. But having them is potentially useful. But maybe they should see the numbers, and maybe if they decide on treatment anyway that is their right to do so, and taking it away is wrong. Either way the problem is the system, not tests themselves.
That's a problem that can be fixed. Very basic statistics is much simpler than most of things doctors have to learn about. The article explained it elegantly in a simple graphic.
I find it hard to believe there is ever a time where collecting less data is an improvement. At worst the data doesn't change anything, but at best it gives you new information that improves outcomes.
If more (correct) information is actually making outcomes worse, it's not the information's fault. It's the system using that information incorrectly.
> But the system doesn't weigh the cost and Quality Adjusted Life Years of treatment vs not treatment, it just defaults to treatment. This is the problem that needs to be fixed, not eliminating collecting data.
Doesn't it? I mean, depends on the place probably, but I remember having a class with an MD once and we were discussing the overall goal of healthcare, and how to balance physical and mental well-being. The problems that arise there are exactly like this: you know, with your "perfectly accurate" data, that patient has X and, say, 3 years to live with serious symptoms showing up only close to the (for lack of better word) deadline; telling them about it will most likely mean 3 years of stress, painful treatment and heavy strain on patient's family&friends for, at best, a small extension of the lifespan. Not telling them means they live 2.5 years happy and then for the last 0.5 year they get sick. Should you tell them?
Most people scream "yes", and that's exactly your approach of "defaulting to treatment". Doctors would sometimes like to answer "no", but that means lying to the patient, and not showing them the data.
> And if the patients really are the problem, then don't show them the raw numbers. But having them is potentially useful. But maybe they should see the numbers, and maybe if they decide on treatment anyway that is their right to do so, and taking it away is wrong.
It seems like a free will issue, except that if 99% of people do the same wrong, stupid thing when experiencing a particular situation, it doesn't seem right to let them suffer from it. It's one of those human rationality errors. Sometimes people do need to be protected from themselves.
Now the problem is that the current trend of separating the doctor's office from the lab - whether via third-party private labs or all those half-assed smartphone-based tests - means that it's hard to hide raw data from the patient.
And yeah, I'm a bit conflicted about it - I want to look at my own raw data, I want to play with it, graph it, whatever, but I'm also aware I might freak out if something really weird shows up in them.
But the system doesn't weigh the cost and Quality Adjusted Life Years of treatment vs not treatment, it just defaults to treatment. This is the problem that needs to be fixed, not eliminating collecting data.
And if the patients really are the problem, then don't show them the raw numbers. But having them is potentially useful. But maybe they should see the numbers, and maybe if they decide on treatment anyway that is their right to do so, and taking it away is wrong. Either way the problem is the system, not tests themselves.