Why Doctors Hate Science

theodp writes "A 2004 study found some 10 million women lacking a cervix were still getting Pap tests. Only problem is, a Pap test screens for cervical cancer — no cervix, no cancer. With this tale, Newsweek's Sharon Begley makes her case for comparative-effectiveness research (CER), which is receiving $1 billion under the stimulus bill for studies to determine which treatments, including drugs, are more medically sound and cost-effective than others for a given ailment. Physicians, Begley says, must stop treatments that are rooted more in local medical culture than in medical science, embrace practices that have been shown scientifically to be superior to others, and ignore critics who paint CER as government control of doctors' decision-making."

Comments

Re:depends on the doctor

[timmarhy]

i've worked in the medical field and i can say while there are some, most doctors trained after 1980 aren't like this. basicly the tests and intruments we have today weren't around even 30 years ago, and gut feeling and experience was all doctors had to go on when the problem didn't present itself in a text book manner.

Women's health?

[malevolentjelly]

At first glance, I thought I saw an article referencing women's health... on Slashdot. First off, there are absolutely no women reading slashdot. Second off, At least half of slashdotters either do not or have not ever interacted with women, much less to the extent that the nature of the cervix is relevant to them. I might go so far as to say that no female has ever seen slashdot intentionally. Ever.

A primer:

"Study finds cure for cervical cancer" == irrelevant to slashdot
"Women's health problems caused by Micro$oft" == a valid slashdot article

And I am not going to bother RTFA, the example they gave was too non-slashdotty. This isn't digg... we don't have girls here. QED.