[qt7]

Of course you're right, but there's a misunderstanding there.

My point is people who went through the experience of having test results compatible with cancer and then discover it is just a false positive (which technically it's not even true, there's no cancer diagnosis before a biopsy, it just can't be excluded), well, these very people seem to speak out against screening, or adopting more extensive screening policies, because they had a "false positive", and "it's stressful".

I am pretty sure all the people whose lives were saved by screening find that pretty selfish.

[lomnakkus]

I think you're misunderstanding something. This has nothing to do with selfishness -- you're only really considering the upside.

The harm/good ratio of screening depends crucially of the false positive/negative ratio vs. the actual prevalence of the condition or disease being screened for. (Plus, obviously the psychological/medical "cost" of a false negative/positive.) I would recommend the talk at [1]. This particular issue is brought up about midway through the video, but I recommend watching the whole thing.

[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_donnelly_shows_how_stats_fool...