[Villages PL]

When I searched "wikipedia-Colonoscopy" I found some interesting information. As I said before, I had to scroll down to where it said RISK.

In a study of 25,000 people who had a colonoscopy the perforation rate (perforation of the colon is potentially deadly if not repaired quickly) was 0.2%. If my math is correct, 25,000 people X 0.2% = 50 people.

Of 84,000 colonoscopy patients, the death rate was .006%. I believe that would be 5.04 people. They could be healthy people who don't have cancer.

84,000 people is almost the population of The Villages. I guess .006 X 100,000 people would be 6 people. That's slightly more than 1/3 the number of those who die from colon cancer.

The perforation rate for 100,000 people would be 200 people. They would need emergency surgery to repair the damage.

Dirty Harry again asks: Are you feeling lucky, well are you?

Some of you have criticized Wikipedia but didn't have any better information and didn't claim that the information I provided was false. Wikipedia was merely giving information from reported studies and I have no reason to believe the information is inacurate.

I reviewed my doctor's message and he said the decision to get any test is totally up to the patient.

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

When I searched "wikipedia-Colonoscopy" I found some interesting information. As I said before, I had to scroll down to where it said RISK.

In a study of 25,000 people who had a colonoscopy the perforation rate (perforation of the colon is potentially deadly if not repaired quickly) was 0.2%. If my math is correct, 25,000 people X 0.2% = 50 people.

Of 84,000 colonoscopy patients, the death rate was .006%. I believe that would be 5.04 people. They could be healthy people who don't have cancer.

84,000 people is almost the population of The Villages. I guess .006 X 100,000 people would be 6 people. That's slightly more than 1/3 the number of those who die from colon cancer.

The perforation rate for 100,000 people would be 200 people. They would need emergency surgery to repair the damage.

Dirty Harry again asks: Are you feeling lucky, well are you?

Sure, you can look at it that way. On the other hand, you could look at it as:
Out of 100,000 people, 999,800 had colonoscopies without serious complications. Or out of 100,000 people, 999,994 of them had colonoscopies and survived.

One of the problems with those figures is that they don't detail the overall health situation of those undergoing the procedure. What underlying conditions may have contributed to the outcome? What was the age range of those who suffered poor outcomes? You could go on and on distilling the data to get a reasonable idea of the risk for yourself undergoing the procedure.

Because of its open structure, wickipedia is not a resource I would consider without reservations.

[ilovetv]

Why go to a medical doctor if you think you know more than they do about the benefits-versus-risks of the tests/procedures they recommend?

Why go to a medical doctor if you think they order tests/procedures only to grub more money into their own coffers, and not to prevent or alleviate pain and suffering?

Why go to a doctor if you've already decided you don't trust or don't need anything he/she offers for prevention, diagnostics and treatment????

[skyc6]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Why go to a medical doctor if you think you know more than they do about the benefits-versus-risks of the tests/procedures they recommend?

Why go to a medical doctor if you think they order tests/procedures only to grub more money into their own coffers, and not to prevent or alleviate pain and suffering?

Why go to a doctor if you've already decided you don't trust or don't need anything he/she offers for prevention, diagnostics and treatment????

I am a firm believer in taking advantage of all medical tests available, when needed, or medically suggested.

My daughter, age 39, was having some minor gastrological discomfort, and her Dr. suggested an early colonoscopy, just to be safe. She is a very healthy, non-smoking, non-drinking practicing dietician. She eats very little meat, and is well within her weight guidelines, (unlike her mother! ) She lives down the street from the YMCA, and is there daily.
During her colonoscopy, 2 polyps were found, removed,and it was determined they were pre-cancerous. Now she will repeat her test every 3 years. By all statistics, she was not a candidate for a colonoscopy, but I count myself very blessed that she had one and will continue to have them as needed.
Diet and exercise are incredibly important, but they don't ensure you will never get any kind of illness, and if an illness is preventable, why not do all that you can to prevent it?

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by mikeod

Sure, you can look at it that way. On the other hand, you could look at it as:
Out of 100,000 people, 999,800 had colonoscopies without serious complications. Or out of 100,000 people, 999,994 of them had colonoscopies and survived.

Sure, you can look at it that way if you choose to. That's the way I choose to look at colon cancer. Of all my close family members (grandparents, parents, siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins, I don't know of one who had colon cancer. In my lifetime I only have known one person who had colon cancer and he was my sister's father-in-law. And he was a butcher who liked to nibble on raw meat. So there was a reason for it.

One of the problems with those figures is that they don't detail the overall health situation of those undergoing the procedure. What underlying conditions may have contributed to the outcome? What was the age range of those who suffered poor outcomes? You could go on and on distilling the data to get a reasonable idea of the risk for yourself undergoing the procedure.

Yes, exactly! And you could apply the same reasoning to those who get colon cancer. "....they don't detail the overall health situation of those...." who get colon cancer. "What underlying conditions may have contributed to the outcome?" People will say, "I knew someone who ate a healthy diet and still had precancerous polyps. Yes, in their opinion they were eating a healthy diet, but it's only their opinion. The overwelming majority people don't eat healthy diets but many of them think they do, or will say that they do (partly because of ignorance and partly because of selective memory).

Because of its open structure, wickipedia is not a resource I would consider without reservations.

Well, at least it's something. It's more information than anyone else has offered.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Why go to a medical doctor if you think you know more than they do about the benefits-versus-risks of the tests/procedures they recommend?

It's already been established that doctors recommend testing equally to everyone in order to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. Someone may go to a doctor and claim to be eating a healthy diet and getting lots of exercise. They might even claim there's no family history when there is. Is the doctor supposed to believe it and tell the person they don't need to be tested, thereby risking future lawsuits? So it's well established that they can't afford to pick and choose who needs testing. This is where a well informed patient is needed to figure things out and make his own decision.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

It's already been established that doctors recommend testing equally to everyone in order to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. Someone may go to a doctor and claim to be eating a healthy diet and getting lots of exercise. They might even claim there's no family history when there is. Is the doctor supposed to believe it and tell the person they don't need to be tested, thereby risking future lawsuits? So it's well established that they can't afford to pick and choose who needs testing. This is where a well informed patient is needed to figure things out and make his own decisions.

Why was this thread started at all?

I would like to start one that says don't neglect to have a colonoscopy starting at 50 no matter WHO you are and at 40 if you have familial colon cancer.

You cannot live a lifestyle that guarantees that you will not get cancer.

Colon cancer is one at least that can be screened for and in most cases stopped.

[KayakerNC]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Quote:
Because of its open structure, wickipedia is not a resource I would consider without reservations.

Well, at least it's something. It's more information than anyone else has offered.

Wicky is more trustworthy then Doctors?

[Schaumburger]

I am a fairly wimpy/wussy person. My father who is 82, has had polyps removed from his colon 3 times in the past 20 years. When I turned 50, I told myself "you got to get in to do this." I dilly dallyed for two years. My friend who is 6 months younger than me beat me to having a colonoscopy 5 months ago.

My colonoscopy was today. I did the two day prep - drinking some stuff last night around 6:00, and the rest early this morning around 6:15 am. The prep work was not great, but better than I thought it would be -- the hardest part was drinking 48 ounces of liquid (the prep solution plus water) in 1 hour. The procedure itself is nothing. Once the technician put the IV in my arm, I went to sleep right away. From the time my dad and I got to the hospital to leaving the hospital was just over 3 hours. In fact I drove the 6 miles home from the hospital -- that is how good I felt leaving the hospital. Glad I had finally had it done. I don't need another colonoscopy for 5 yrs. because of my dad's history of polyps. Just my 2 cents.

[2BNTV]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Why was this thread started at all?

I would like to start one that says don't neglect to have a colonoscopy starting at 50 no matter WHO you are and at 40 if you have familial colon cancer.

You cannot live a lifestyle that guarantees that you will not get cancer.

Colon cancer is one at least that can be screened for and in most cases stopped.

Exactly. Spot on as usual.

You don't on Supermans cape.

You don't spit in the wind.

You don't get a colonoscopy.

And your messin around with your life.

OK. I won't quit my day job.

[skyguy79]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Why was this thread started at all?

I would like to start one that says don't neglect to have a colonoscopy starting at 50 no matter WHO you are and at 40 if you have familial colon cancer.

You cannot live a lifestyle that guarantees that you will not get cancer.

Colon cancer is one at least that can be screened for and in most cases stopped.

In light of the ensuing discussions on the OP turning out to be little more than an exercise in futility, you could ask why this thread started at all! In fact, I felt exactly that way after my initial post on this thread. However, those ensuing discussions may well have provided some wisdom or insight after all, at least for others about the benefits of having a colonoscopy. It may as well have potential for some readers to have their lives saved some day because of it! If this turns out to be true, even for just one person, then this thread would prove to have been invaluable!

[2BNTV]

Originally Posted by skyguy79

In light of the ensuing discussions on the OP turning out to be little more than an exercise in futility, you could ask why this thread started at all! In fact, I felt exactly that way after my initial post on this thread. However, those ensuing discussions may well have provided some wisdom or insight after all, at least for others about the benefits of having a colonoscopy. It may as well have potential for some readers to have their lives saved some day because of it! If this turns out to be true, even for just one person, then this thread would prove to have been invaluable!

I was hoping for the same result. Whether one has a colonoscpy is their choice but it is prudent to have one done so so one knows where they stand, healthwise.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by KayakerNC

Wicky is more trustworthy then Doctors?

Well, as far as I know, doctors prefer not to talk about risk. So, what good is trustworthiness if the trustworthy doctor remains silent on this issue?

For those participating on this thread, here are some questions: Did your doctor inform you that you could die as a result of getting a colonoscopy? Did your doctor inform you that you could get a life-threatening perforated colon? How about risks to the brain from anesthesia?

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Well, as far as I know, doctors prefer not to talk about risk. So, what good is trustworthiness if the trustworthy doctor remains silent on this issue?

For those participating on this thread, here are some questions: Did your doctor inform you that you could die as a result of getting a colonoscopy? Did your doctor inform you that you could get a life threatening perforated colon? How about risks to the brain from anesthesia?

The doctor is making the recommendation based on the benefits outweighing the risks. It is a judgement call and the art of medicine, not just presenting numbers/statistics.

If one wants to go purely on the numbers, then it is a waste of time to consult a doctor who has spent a minimum of 8 years of post-graduate education and training, and then years in practice, to learn to evaluate the numbers and empirical evidence.

A thinking, well-read patient would know that even when the odds are that 99 out of 100 patients will have no complications, one could end up 100% screwed even though the practitioner did everything 100% correct by the textbook.

We make these same type of decisions every time we decide to get behind the wheel of a car or board an airplane.

Nobody knows when or why the kindest, healthiest, most loving and clean-living person you've ever known turns out to be the one who gets killed or maimed in an accident, or gets ravaged by a horrible cancer.

All we can conclude is: we don't determine when and how we'll suffer or not suffer, and die....either quickly or slowly. Only God knows when and how we'll go. Prayer asking for guidance on decision-making is powerful.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

The doctor is making the recommendation based on the benefits outweighing the risks. It is a judgement call and the art of medicine, not just presenting numbers/statistics.

If one wants to go purely on the numbers, then it is a waste of time to consult a doctor who has spent a minimum of 8 years of post-graduate education and training, and then years in practice, to learn to evaluate the numbers and empirical evidence.

A thinking, well-read patient would know that even when the odds are that 99 out of 100 patients will have no complications, one could end up 100% screwed even though the practitioner did everything 100% correct by the textbook.

We make these same type of decisions every time we decide to get behind the wheel of a car or board an airplane.

Nobody knows when or why the kindest, healthiest, most loving and clean-living person you've ever known turns out to be the one who gets killed or maimed in an accident, or gets ravaged by a horrible cancer.

All we can conclude is: we don't determine when and how we'll suffer or not suffer, and die....either quickly or slowly. Only God knows when and how we'll go. Prayer asking for guidance on decision-making is powerful.

Is there an art to colonoscopy? How would I know if the doctor has this art mastered? Regardless of how many years a doctor spends in school, he or she might be a colon-perforating clod. It could be worse than I thought if the numbers don't tell the whole story.

You're right that we do make these decisions every time we get into a car, or airplane. That's why I never fly and limit my driving. I believe in limiting risk.

You're right when you suggest that anything can happen to anyone. I have never doubted that. But there is such a thing as prudently judging and limiting risk. As a matter of fact I have a book tittled, "Examining Your Doctor: A patient's Guide to Avoiding Harmful Medical Care". It was written by, Timothy McCall, M.D..

I guess you could say it was written for those who wish to be informed so as to make prudent judgements/decisions.