A healthy debate is under way. On one side, several urologists and prostate cancer patients are arguing for routine screening for prostate cancer among men over, say, 55. They say that if caught early, the cancer is quite treatable and the spreading of the cancer to other vital organs can be prevented. On the other side, some public-health doctors are pointing to the downside of routine testing. They say the test is relatively unreliable. Depending on where the cut-off point is set, it gives too many false positives and too many false negatives, both with unfortunate effects. Some men might be put on unnecessarily debilitating treatments like surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy when if left alone they would most likely die from some cause other than the cancer. Conversely, some men might go away with the false knowledge that they are free from cancer.
This debate can be quite constructive. Viewed sensibly, it indicates that more research is needed. It will require greater investment (and nearly all medical research should be seen as investment rather than just funding).
What is not constructive, however, is silly comparisons between the treatment of “”male” cancers (prostate and testicular) and “”female” cancers (breast and cervix). Each disease, and the effort to counter and prevent it, has to be dealt with according to the seriousness the threat it poses.