Guest fountainhall Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I have often scolded my brother and sister, both in their 60s, for not getting regular health check-ups. “Waste of time,” is their general response. That I could understand from many of my friends and acquaintances. But it so happens my brother and sister are doctors. Given what we are always told about the benefits of regular check-ups, what gives, I have always wondered? Well, an article on the BBC’s website today seems to suggest they may be correct. Visiting a doctor for a general check-up is unlikely to lead to a condition needing treatment being identified, but may cause undue stress, say experts . . . Lead researcher Lasse Krogsboll, of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark, said: "A likely explanation is that physicians are doing a good job of preventing illness anyway. "From the evidence we've seen, inviting patients to general health checks is unlikely to be beneficial. "We're not saying that doctors should stop carrying out tests or offering treatment when they suspect that there may be a problem. "But we do think that public healthcare initiatives that are systematically offering general health checks should be resisted." . . . The review looked at health checks offered in a number of countries, including some pilot trials in the UK a decade or more ago. The article does add that one reason for health checks not being beneficial may be that most of those who seek them are already fit and take an interest in their own health, whilst those more at risk of serious illness stay away. http://www.bbc.co.uk...health-19964600 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thaiworthy Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 The article does add that one reason for health checks not being beneficial may be that most of those who seek them are already fit and take an interest in their own health, whilst those more at risk of serious illness stay away. I'd imagine diehard smokers and overweight would fall into the latter category. I also have my own perceptions about tests and other analyses. "You see this spot here on your x-ray, that could be a problem," my doctor said. "We'll need more tests." Finally after more tests, which leads to more suspicious things lurking, there was never anything wrong in the first place. Personally, I think all these tests are money-makers for the industry. But that is just my personal opinion. I think medicines are over-prescribed and if people took better care of themselves, myself included, there would be less of a need for check-ups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokopelli Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Everyone should see a doctor once a year no matter unless you are a doctor and can self diagnose. For me I see a cardiologist twice a year and my GP two to three times a year so no need for an additional "annual" physical in my opinion. No matter how healthy you may think you are there is a need to have blood pressure, heart, eyes, blood, etc tested in order to detect the not so obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogie Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 . . . tested in order to detect the not so obvious. The not-so-obvious? Sounds reasonable but I think we are talking about the rarer medical conditions here. Those difficult to pin down that may well involve a lot of tests, that may in the end prove to be a blind alley as happened to TW. I agree the "blood pressure and eyes" are important and straightforward provided you see an optician every year. The GP or nurse can take your Blood pressure or you can buy your own monitor for use at home. Not expensive and a good idea if you are the sort of person whose BP goes up when you see a person in a 'white coat'. The heart is a tricky one and various companies offer a variety of tests to find out if you have blocked blood vessels by a build-up of plaque. In a way I am lucky as I have a recognised heart condition so like Koko I see the cardiologist every 9 months or so on average. If you don't have medical insurance (which might cover an annual check) and it's up to you to decide what to do about getting your ticker checked, and assuming your doctor checks with his stethoscope and announces it sounds just fine. Either you can believe your heart is indeed 'just fine' or you can get more tests to see if you are at risk of coronary artery disease, but my suspicion is similar to TW's that outfits offering these tests are after your money first and foremost and the chances of them discovering a life-threatening condition are very small indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thaiworthy Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 . . . but my suspicion is similar to TW's that outfits offering these tests are after your money first and foremost . . . My gynecologist insists I can't get pregnant. But I keep taking these tests and one day I know that rabbit will die. Unfortunately in Thailand, nothing goes to waste and that hare may end up at one of HeyGay's favorite restaurants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 "blood pressure and eyes" are important and straightforward provided you see an optician every year I agree the eyes are vital, but simply seeing an optician is not enough. The older one gets, the more detailed the eye examination needs to be. Some years ago, I had a fall. A few weeks later, I had to have an operation to have a retina reattached. I was informed that those like me who are near-sighted and have worn spectacles since early childhood, are more likely to suffer from deterioration around the edges of the retinas. By the time you reach 50, you should therefore start having not just eye checks to determine vision, but also retina checks. This is now done both visually with the pupils dilated and with a retina scan. When spotted early, laser treatment can help stop the deterioration. However, the scan is important as it will pick up age-related macular degeneration at an early stage. This occurs when the very centre of the retina degrades. This can result in the appearance of a small hole which will affect focusing on close objects, making it more difficult to read with that eye, for example. This is definitely a case where early detection will result in very positive benefits. However, retina scans are not a part of any of the regular health check-up plans that I know of. http://www.macularde...org/agedex.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogie Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 However, retina scans are not a part of any of the regular health check-up plans that I know of. You are quite right to highlight the importance of a retinal scan. My reference to 'seeing an optician' was misleading. As FH says, you need to do more than just read the eye chart and get your spectacle prescription (if needed). As I too am near-sighted and wear contact lenses, I have a retinal scan as part of my annual check up. Evenif your scan is completely normal it isn't a waste of time to have it done every so often. That means if for any reason your optician spots anything untoward on your scan he can say with confidence that the changes occurred since your previous scan which was normal. I am no expert but I would imagine the optician can get quite a good idea as to the severity of whatever has been detected by being able to put any changes into a precise.timeframe. I would suggest keeping to the same optician if possible to maintain continuity. At least one major chain of opticians in the UK now offers those over 40 digital retinal photography as routine for no extra charge. http://www.specsavers.co.uk/eye-health/retinal-photography/?oo=41647924 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anonone Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I tend to agree that the general "once a year" visit to a General Practitioner have very little value. As some of the above posts tend to indicate, it needs to be a much more dependant on your personal health history and family predispositions. Someone with a family history of early heart disease should be checking on this with more frequency. Past eye health issues means frequent checkups with the eye doc. There is not a specific plan that makes sense for every person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Sorry, but I'm going to disagree at least in part and find it difficult to believe that anybody is arguing against the need for a periodic general checkup. The lab tests (blood/urine) can point out problems long before they become life threatening and within a time frame that allows you to actually do something about a given problem (whether showing a tendency for high blood sugar, high blood pressure, kidney or liver issues, etc., etc.). The notion that you only go if/when you "need to" is, to me, like the guy quickly looking for a helmet as his motorcycle is about to slam into a truck. As to how often one should go....either for a general physical, eye/retina exam, etc., I do agree a lot of that depends on your personal and family history. I can understand somebody 15-45 only going every 5 years or so (and additionaly when they have a particular problem) but us older guys ought to be going a bit more often than that. I remember talking to a couple of buddies (both in their 40's at the time) when their father died at 61 and them telling me and others that their dad was the oldest male ever for any of their ancestors (most died of heart attacks in their 30's and 40's!). After hearing that, I and a couple of others encouraged both of the brothers to go get a physical (neither had done so since high school football) which they did and discovered that both of them had horrendously high bad cholesterol levels. After that, they (well, to be honest, mostly due to their spouses) dramatically altered their diets and they both are well within "normal" cholesterol levels, seemingly very healthy, and they're both now the oldest males in the family tree. P.S. Khun Fountainhill....it's difficult for me to believe that neither of your doctor siblings ever checks anything out (even blood pressure, cholesterol levels, or whatever). If they truly haven't ever been checked out, they're truly blessed with good genes (except, perhaps, in the common sense department...hehe). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Khun Fountainhill....it's difficult for me to believe that neither of your doctor siblings ever checks anything out (even blood pressure, cholesterol levels, or whatever) I am sure they have had their blood pressures taken occasionally, but nothing more than that. I have always thought they might be slightly mad, but that's probably in the family genes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokopelli Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 There have been a number of true stories of health and fitness gurus who literally dropped dead simply because they neglected their health. Often an autopsy revealed they had serious cardio-vascular disease but were too smug to get a check up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
