Papers often profess to be interested in serving their readers. They are also interested in news, and the two things do not always go together.
Many papers err on the side of providing too much service ("How to tell when an avocodo is ripe" or "Five tips for better sleep"), a trend that has unfortunately accelerated in recent years. Others, mindful of their journalistic independence and unwilling to even appear to be too close to their sources, run away from such stories, arguing that they are not news.
Today, 17 medical specialty societies–allergists, radiologists, rheumatologists, and the like–released a list of tests they say are commonly ordered, but not always necessary—and which "could cause undue harm" (press release).
Some news organizations might argue that this is a public relations campaign by the medical societies and unworthy of coverage. And apparently some did, because the list got only a modicum of coverage.
Many of the bigs showed up. Laurie Tarkan on the Well blog at The New York Times reported the recommendations, adding comment from Dr. Eric Topol of Scripps Health in San Diego, who was not involved in preparing the list. "The [medical] literature had supported these recommendations, but until now they were not sanctioned as no-no’s by the professional groups,” he said. Meaning, I think, that this is a good thing.
Richard Knox at NPR found a nice way to back into the story:
Doctors do stuff — tests, procedures, drug regimens and operations. It's what they're trained to do, what they're paid to do and often what they fear not doing.
So it's pretty significant that a broad array of medical specialty groups is issuing an expanding list of don'ts for physicians
The AP's Lauran Neergaard issued a command to her readers, writing "Don't be afraid to question your doctor and ask 'Do I really need that?'" In her second graf, she writes that "leading medical groups" selected "dozens of tests that physicians prescribe too frequently. Why she didn't use the shorter and more accurate (and more impressive) "90," I don't know.
The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times were among those that weighed in–meaning the big guys looked pretty good.
I didn't scan everything, of course, but I was disappointed not to see anyone using this as an occasion to do a takeout. Maybe somebody is working on a follow for the weekend. This is an important piece of service for the reader–I might have run the whole list in a box on an inside page or on the website–and it's news when, as Knox points out, doctors say something that is, in a certain respect, the opposite of what they usually say.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply