If a middle aged man is in decent health, at what age should he start getting checked out and screened? What should he get checked out for?
My GP starts from 40, unless there’s history. Prostate, diabetes, cholesterol and some other blood factors (atherosclerosis, maybe?), for me.
I’m quite relieved they do blood tests for prostate now. Not that I mind the intrusion, but my GP’s female.
If you’re pale, especially with moles, doesn’t hurt to have a skin cancer check, too.
Isn’t it generally advisable to see a GP at all ages? I’m 27 (and female) and saw a doctor last month, where my blood was tested for a variety of things, including cholesterol and diabetes.
Maybe, but for those of us who don’t have a doctor, haven’t seen a doctor in decades, feel like we’re in generally good health, and just don’t want to go to a doctor, it’d take more to motivate us to see one than a vague general “It’d be a good idea.”
Men tend to get checked up less often than women do. Women are in a once-a-year routine because of PAP smears and the doctor does a few other things at the same time. Men can usually get away with something every 3 to 5 years unless there are specific symptoms they’re worried about. (This said by my GP to my wife, who thought she was just being efficient by scheduling a check up for me every year.)
I don’t think that going to the doctor when one feels healthy is a good idea. An extremely rare outcome would be that they find something that would have killed you in a couple of years but discovered early, treated you painlessly and you are now cured. The vastly more likely outcome is that you will be out a lot of money, and a fairly likely outcome is that you will have additional tests ordered. If you have a family history of a specific disease then intermittent testing for that disease is likely prudent.
Right. Why detect and treat hypertension or colon cancer? Not very prudent.
I’m 33 and get an annual physical, including blood tests. The doc says the blood work is optional, but I like to have as much checked as possible. I’ll probably start even more detailed checking when I’m 40.
Heck, I learned my good cholestorol was low a few years ago. I fixed it through diet and exercise.
I’m 48 but I’ve pretty much always gotten annual checkups. I’ve sometimes gone up to two years between checkups. Since I have an issue with cholesterol it’s become more important for an annual checkup but I did them even before that became an issue.
If you have health insurance, getting an annual checkup is a no-brainer.
I started getting annual physicals when I turned 50. They’ve found some things that, while they aren’t immediate problems, they need to be treated to prevent me from getting sick as time goes on.
If you go to the Preventive Services Web site at http://epss.ahrq.gov/ePSS/search.jsp and put in your age, sex, and check the other buttons as appropriate, you’ll get a list of recommendations for the screening tests you should have.
That’s far from universal…
My company provides us with preventative care, such as check-ups and flu shots, at no cost. The idea being that if you see a doctor once a year for a check-up you are more likely to find issues early, like diabetes or high cholesterol, even if you don’t necessarily feel unwell.
I realize that not all companies do this, but my company sees it as both in their interest and their employee’s best interest.
But GPs don’t do PAPs – aren’t a yearly physical and a gynecological exam two different things? I have a separate doctor for each. I don’t think it has to be exactly every year for a physical for men or women either – my GP told me to come in about every couple of years or so.
Everybody should start getting colonoscopies in middle age. Colon cancer is preventable and highly treatable if caught early when there are no symptoms. It is deadly if it’s found too late.
Likewise high blood pressure. My doctor calls it “the silent killer.”
That’s far from universal… MrDibble, I am not sure I understand this comment. However, if you go in for routine screening it is vastly more likely that you will have to undergo additional testing at great expense and, for some tests, a more than trivial morbidity chance. This outcome is much more likely that getting cured by the early discovery of a disease.
MLS: it is true that the death rate from colon cancer drops by 50% in those who have had polyps removed during colonoscopy. What I could not find out is what the complication rate to the surgery is. I personally know of two individual who died of colonoscopy complications. I would guess that the number of people accidently killed or seriously injured in a larger number that those saved.
Instead of making stuff up and guessing, how about, you know, just looking up the numbers?
Here’s a very rough estimate:
Meanwhile, here’s the latest study on colonoscopy benefits from the NEJM:
The missing information here is the percentage of colonoscopies which find polyps. The NYTimes article about the NEJM study implies it’s about 20 percent, but I’d welcome corrections on that.
Take 1 million people in the right age range and give them colonoscopies. Let’s say 1/16,000 die as a result of the procedure, so you cause 62.5 deaths. Meanwhile, you remove polyps from 20% of the patients. The NEJM study says that the colorectal cancer mortality rate over their follow-up period was about 0.5% in the treated group vs. 1% in the general population. Of the 200,000 patients who had polyps removed, 1000 die of colorectal cancer, compared to 2000 in the general population, so you have saved 1000 - 62.5 = 937.5 lives.
I worked with a guy in his forties, and he actually BRAGGED about not seeing a doctor in over twenty years.
I’ve been on BP meds since I turned 30, and his attitude astounded me. “You should be checked at least for high blood pressure.”
“Oh, I have relaxation techniques i use.”
Pffffft.
I told him that he is the type who simply drops dead at his desk one day.
Check your family tree. How old were your grandparents when they died? Aunts and uncles? What were the causes of their death?
If you see heart attack, stroke, kidney disease; if you see dying at 55, 57, 60–I’ll bet they died from the complications of untreated high blood pressure and/or diabetes. People don’t HAVE to die from those diseases any more.
~VOW
Vow, you are exactly correct. If you have a family history then you need to be screened. No family history and there is no easy correct answer.
Moving to IMHO from GQ.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator