I am very much afraid that CT screenings would have the unintended consequence of actually encouraging smoking behavior if the screening test is negative.
If the screening was intended to get potential donors interested in the cause, the audience was just right.
The National Breast Cancer Coalition responded by raising questions about who would pay for the medical care if the screening showed cancer.
Yet many medical organizations and experts on prostate cancer remain equivocal about when, or even if, the screening test should be given.
If the screening test is positive, should he get a treatment that may or may not be effective, or even necessary, and that may or may not have serious side effects, like incontinence and impotence?
Asked by Malaysian reporters if the screening of the steamy video had broken any laws, he pointed out that the exhibitors had not demanded any money from the invited reporters.
They may become subject to regulatory actions if the screening evidence is substantiated by additional information.
In either case, if the screening question was answered negatively the interview was complete at that point.
If we assume that 100% of the population are screened the cost per screening could be 1.05 US$ if the screening is 100% sensitive, 0.64 US$ if the sensitivity is 75% and 0.23 US$ if it were 50% sensitive.
If the screening question was answered positively, and the selected respondent was present, the full interview continued; if the selected respondent was not present, an appointment was made for the interviewer to return for this purpose.
If the screening was a good idea that was also good in execution, answering questions was only a good idea.
