Hofmann Bjørn
Faculty of Health Care and Nursing, University College of Gjøvik, PO Box 191, 2802, Gjøvik, Norway.
Med Health Care Philos. 2010 May;13(2):139-48. doi: 10.1007/s11019-010-9233-8.
It has been argued extensively that diagnostic services are a general good, but that it is offered in excess. So what is the problem? Is not "too much of a good thing wonderful", to paraphrase Mae West? This article explores such a possibility in the field of radiological services where it is argued that more than 40% of the examinations are excessive. The question of whether radiological examinations are excessive cries for a definition of diagnostic futility. However, no such definition is found in the literature. As a response, this article addresses the issue of diagnostic futility in five steps. First, it investigates whether the concept of therapeutic futility can be adapted to diagnostics. A closer analysis of the concept of therapeutic futility reveals that this will not do the trick. Second, the article scrutinizes whether there are sources for clarifying diagnostic futility in the extensive debate on excessive radiological examination. Investigating the debate's terms and definitions reveals a disparate terminology and no clear concepts. On the contrary, the study uncovers that quite different and incompatible issues are at stake. Third, the article examines a procedural approach, which is widely used for settling controversies over utility by focusing on the role of the professionals. On scrutiny however, a procedural approach will not solve the problem in diagnostics. Fourth, a value analysis reveals how we have to decide on the negative value of excessive examinations before we can measure excess. The final and constructive part presents a definition of diagnostic futility drawing upon the lessons from the previous analytical steps. Altogether, too much radiological examination is not a good thing. This is simply because radiological examinations are not unanimously good. Excessive radiological examinations can be defined, but not by one simple general and value-neutral definition. We have to settle with contextually framed value-related definitions. Such definitions will state how bad "too much of a good thing" is and make it possible to assess how much of the bad thing there is. Hence we have to know how bad it is before we can tell how much of it there is in the world.
人们广泛认为诊断服务是一种公益,但却存在过度提供的情况。那么问题出在哪里呢?套用梅·韦斯特的话来说,“好东西太多难道不是很棒吗”?本文探讨了放射服务领域存在的这种可能性,有人认为超过40%的检查是多余的。放射检查是否多余的问题迫切需要对诊断无用性进行定义。然而,文献中并未找到这样的定义。作为回应,本文分五步探讨诊断无用性问题。首先,研究治疗无用性的概念是否可适用于诊断。对治疗无用性概念的深入分析表明这行不通。其次,本文审视在关于过度放射检查的广泛辩论中是否有明确诊断无用性的依据。研究辩论中的术语和定义会发现术语各不相同且概念不清晰。相反,该研究发现存在截然不同且相互矛盾的问题。第三,本文考察一种程序方法,该方法通过关注专业人员的作用来解决关于效用的争议。然而,仔细审查后发现,程序方法无法解决诊断中的问题。第四,价值分析揭示在衡量过度之前我们必须如何确定过度检查的负面价值。最后具有建设性的部分借鉴前几步分析的经验教训给出了诊断无用性的定义。总之,过多的放射检查并非好事。这仅仅是因为放射检查并非一概都是好的。过度放射检查可以定义,但不是通过一个简单、通用且价值中立的定义。我们必须采用与背景相关的、与价值相关的定义。这样的定义将说明“好东西太多”有多糟糕,并使评估有多少这种坏事成为可能。因此,在我们能够说出世界上有多少坏事之前,我们必须先知道它有多糟糕。