
Are all of the guidelines and restrictions when it comes to what age we should be screened for a particular disease really in our best interest? Yes, I believe everything should come with parameters, but to what expense? Do health officials know when to ignore the guidelines as much as they know when to follow them?
I just read about David Cohen the 40 year old veteran who is suing the VA Hospital because they denied his request for a colonoscopy. A request that was made because he has a family history of colon cancer, including his grandmother who died from the disease and other family members who have exhibited symptoms. He has proof that just last year he was denied just a few minutes after his request was made. How is a few minutes enough time to make a sound decision on something as important as a screening test that could possibly save your life?
So now Mr. Cohen is in for the fight of his life. He was diagnosed with stage 4 Colon Cancer and was given 26 months to live. From what I've seen and read about him, I believe he has the will to beat what he's been told, but is this something that could have been prevented? Sure, he may have gotten cancer no matter what, but to what degree? With early detection, we're talking about stage 1 or 2, when the chances of survival are far greater.
We need health-care reform in the worst way and on so many levels. A CNN anchor asked Mr. Cohen today why he didn't turn away from the VA when they repeatedly turned him down and just pay for the test himself. He, like so many other American's couldn't afford it and I suspect in some way he probably believed just a little bit that the people who turned him down and denied his request knew what they were talking about. Navigating the system is challenging at best when you have insurance and doctor's on your side, what happens when you don't.