BMJ  2003;327:989 (25 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7421.989-b

Letter

Feasibility of opportunistic disease prevention

Doctors' responsibilities should not be reduced

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Getz et al doubt the justification for opportunistic disease prevention in primary care because the expanded agenda of risk and prevention since 1979 seems too daunting.1 This is not logical. The correct course is good science and sound professional discipline in the interests of patient wellbeing.

A lot of relevant research has been conducted during the past 25 years and international acceptance of a broad approach to the consultation in primary care is based on this work. The fact that some patients (and doctors) prefer to limit themselves to presenting problems alone is not new; neither is the evidence for caution over how and when to raise wider clinical concerns with such patients.2 3 It has never been good science or sound ethics to impose screening tests or risk factors on patients in the absence of fully informed consent and the time and skills to intervene.3-5

What has changed . . . [Full text of this article]

Nigel C Stott, emeritus professor of general practice

University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff CF23 9PN stottoxwich@aol.com


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Is opportunistic disease prevention in the consultation ethically justifiable?
Linn Getz, Johann A Sigurdsson, and Irene Hetlevik
BMJ 2003 327: 498-500. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ