Comment by tsoukase
8 days ago
There are two points in MRIs that limit or (better) regulate their use:
* financial cost vs level of care. A full body MRI costs a huge sum but it is the most detailed non-invasive diagnosis we have for any disease that can lead to earlier therapy. Used as a screening method, does it worth to save one patient in tens/hundreds tests performed? You answer, but public health authorities, health insurances and medical societies are negative.
* MRI shows some minor findings that would never cause symptoms and better not be known to the patient due to the stress they bring and cost of ongoing follow up (eg in the brain small meningiomas or angiomas). This might bring more harm than good and limit their net value.
For some reason, I always found the arguments for "it's better to not know" for these tests to be strange and slightly infantilizing. But of course this must not be the end of it, and there might be some more well thought out arguments from bioethicists that go beyond "the patient can't handle the truth". Because this argument seems like it's doing a lot of heavy lifting without much evidence.
“slightly infantilizing” might be an appropriate course given how well LLM sycophancy works on the general populace.