annual physical exams

[Effected After]

Ahh, so on the chance you may get a false positive, you should avoid getting tested altogether. Great logic there.

Did everyone on GP take an extra dose of stupid today? It's worse than usual.

[psprof]

A (western) coworker was told he had 'metabolic syndrome' and had to lose 17 kilos, yet to the eye he didn't look overweight at all. All the reports done by the company went to the company (and we got copies).

First off, thank you for the post. I once had a slow heart rate in an EKG... in the US and they did the right thing. They said, it is nothing because it is probably just that you are young and that you cycle regularly. In Japan, if you have a below normal resting heart rate, they will make you go get an cardiac echo. I had an abnormal chest x-ray because I was too slow to translate the Japanese tech when he told me to suck in air and hold it. I had to get a chest CT scan and spend another day wasting my time. Yes, beautiful pictures of my clear lungs, but nothing else accept a triple dose of x-ray radiation. My Japanese friend told me the metabolic syndrome is such a crock of sh**. Another set of very narrow criteria for what is "normal" in order to subject people to further tests.
I have heard such horror stories of OBGYN's threatening women about their pregnancies because they gain one or two extra pounds over what is "normal." The blind reliance on this data for testing, diagnosis, and prognosis, is too rigid. People just do not think enough.

To reply to some of the other posts:
I think that not having a physical examination every year does not mean that you will not be diagnosed with an illness. You can get symptoms and then be diagnosed with the same illness with or without an annual exam.
Second, even with a diagnosis, there is no connection with your ability to recover from most cancers. In other words, if you are diagnosed early or late, your fate is already decided by the type of cancer.
This is all based on statistical averages, not on any particular individual.
Finally, the tests are "costly" and may have a negative expected value. If you calculate, for example, the expected value of a particular test we might find a different result. Expected value is the value of the test minus the cost. The value of the test is based on the probability that it will help you. This includes basically finding an ilness that is treatable and combined with the probability that the treatment actually works and helps you in some way. The costs, on the other hand, involve the probability of false positives, the time you spend, the discomfort, the money or other value you lose based on the time in tests and subsequent tests, and the anxiety. Since the percentage chance of finding something is so small, the benefits are also very small depending on your age and risk factors. Therefore, is it very possible that the value of conducting a test ends up being negative.

For people who want to take all the tests in the word, I would say they are highly risk averse. How many tests would be enough?

Finally, just to be completely rational, a little philosophical, and a bit morbid, I would just like to say that you are already dying. The only thing a cancer diagnosis can do is give you a better estimate of the day you die. Although death is scary - programmed in to our DNA through evolutionary based competition - it is also inevitable. No matter how many tests you get, no matter how much medicine is available, we will die. I try to take a Sagan-esque view of the world and see myself as a very tiny part of the universe sitting on the pale blue dot. Although it would be nice to see my children grow up, succeed, and watch them marry, have kids, or retire, I know that at some point, I will no longer be here. One point in time matters no more than any other point in time because there is always something later on in life that would be cool to see. I just try to make the best of whatever time is left.

[Vortex]

First off, I've not said it's required for every individual at all ages, so that's a strawman.
Second, you still haven't shown how not getting tested for anything is preferable to getting tested for some things

If I ever make a claim like that, I'll consider it an obligation to show how it's preferable. Until then, let's consider it, in your words, a strawman.

More importantly, you seem unable to discuss this without using words like idiot, stupid, and moron. This is one of those rare times where I'd prefer to refrain from responding in kind, so I'll drop out here.

[Effected After]

So if you're not arguing to not get tested, and you are not arguing to get tested, do you actually have a point?

[Hijinx]

The OP just needs to nut up and do the exam already.

[Vortex]

Two words for our KansiBen wannabe: false positives. Nice article here (granted its for the US, but I'll wager some of it applies here): http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...overdiagnosis/

I also had this site in mind when I entered the discussion. A couple more useful articles here (if your mind is already made up on this subject, don't bother):

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...-people-think/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...he-final-word/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...versus-europe/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...heat-up-again/

[Vortex]

So if you're not arguing to not get tested, and you are not arguing to get tested, do you actually have a point?

I do, but your insistence on "either/or" and pushing the moron button suggests that you'd prefer a different type of discussion, and it's one you can take up with someone else.

[Effected After]

False positives are why they do secondary tests. Avoiding tests out of worry of false positives is completely illogical.

[Effected After]

I do, but your insistence on "either/or" and pushing the moron button suggests that you'd prefer a different type of discussion, and it's one you can take up with someone else.

The topic of the thread is on taking company physicals. It's an either/or situation (with a few potential add-ons). You were points about about how the tests had problems, which (apparently incorrectly) led me to believe you were arguing against getting the physical.

But what I'm not clear on is that if you aren't arguing against getting the test, then what is your point?

[Majestic]

the test itself is voluntary for the employee.

It is only "voluntary" in the sense that showing up for work is "voluntary". As mentioned above, the Labor Safety and Health Regulations Act mandates the medical examinations, and imposes fines for companies who do not carry out the exams. There is nothing ambiguous or voluntary in this particular law.

There may be circumstances (pregnancy, etc...) where the annual checkup, or certain parts of it, may be skipped, but the check-up itself is mandatory.

If you refuse to take the test, you are obstructing the company from performing a function it is required by law to perform. This is grounds for termination. So, in this regard, if you want to consider the exams "voluntary", then bombs away. And it also gets back to the OPs question of choice and values: the OP does have a choice, and if not taking these tests is of paramount concern, then the choice is pretty black and white: don't work for a company. Or, don't work for a company that bothers with the minutiae of the Labor Safety Act. Or, start your own company and ignore the Labor Safety Act and wear the fine every year.

[Vortex]

The topic of the thread is on taking company physicals. It's an either/or situation (with a few potential add-ons). You were points about about how the tests had problems, which (apparently incorrectly) led me to believe you were arguing against getting the physical.

But what I'm not clear on is that if you aren't arguing against getting the test, then what is your point?

Reread the posts, or give it up. I don't care which.

[Effected After]

Magestic: Sorry, but that's incorrect. When I used to work for one of the top 5 publishing companies in Japan, a big company, the foreign division complained because of the breach of privacy. The company lawyers looked into it, and as you stated, they are obligated by law to provide the test. However, they also found out that we could sign waivers, absolving the company of responsibility. The waivers were very strongly worded that the company had told us to take the exam and that we were refusing to do so.

The company wasn't going to let us waive our rights if they were liable for it. And think about it - this isn't a communist country. The laws are worded strongly to require companies to give the test, because if they weren't worded that way, lots of companies wouldn't do it. But when you dig a little deeper, they employee isn't required to take it. After all, how is the government going to punish a person for not getting a medical check?

Now, that all said, as I mentioned earlier, if you try to refuse, you are going to face opposition on all sides. But opposition does not equal law.

[Effected After]

Reread the posts, or give it up. I don't care which.

I did re-read them, before my last post to you. You seem to be trying to say something, but whatever it is it's not clear at all.

[Majestic]

As I said above, and as the relevant Japanese Labor Law states (to which I provided links, for those who have not been bored into complete idiocy by this thread), the law is most definitely not voluntary, and there is no secret handshake that will allow employees to slip through the cracks. The laws are worded strongly not because "lots of companies wouldn't do it". The laws are worded this way to provide protection for the employee, and to clarify what the company's responsibility is towards the employee. The law does not provide for companies to give you a pass on these tests, even if you sign something as compelling as...a strongly worded waiver. I have dug as deep as is required of this utterly mundane, but perennially popular topic.

The government does not punish the employee. The government punishes the company, as explained ad infinitum.

Now as to your previous experience with your large publishing company and the foreign division and the company lawyers who came up with the strongly worded waivers, I do not know what, or how, or why things progressed as they did, but I'm relieved (in a barely measurable sense) that you got a satisfactory outcome. However, your anecdotal tale of supposedly threading through some little-known legal loophole is extremely unhelpful as it sets expectations that this is standard practice that is available for all. It is not. If you refuse these tests, you are setting yourself up for a showdown with your company.

[Effected After]

You seem to be agreeing with me while trying to disagree with me.

As I said above, and as the relevant Japanese Labor Law states (to which I provided links, for those who have not been bored into complete idiocy by this thread), the law is most definitely not voluntary

Ok, we are on the same page here. As I said earlier, companies are obligated to provide the test, and as you can see in the link you provided, all obligation is on the company, not the employee.

and there is no secret handshake that will allow employees to slip through the cracks.

It's not a 'secret handshake'. Employees have the right to waive their right - there is no law that requires an employee to take the test, there is only a law that requires companies to provide it.

The laws are worded strongly not because "lots of companies wouldn't do it". The laws are worded this way to provide protection for the employee, and to clarify what the company's responsibility is towards the employee.

Um, they are the same thing.

The law does not provide for companies to give you a pass on these tests, even if you sign something as compelling as...a strongly worded waiver. I have dug as deep as is required of this utterly mundane, but perennially popular topic.

Not deep enough apparently. As I said, the lawyers in my old company had to look into this to decide what to do - it was a huge issue in our company at the time.

The government does not punish the employee. The government punishes the company, as explained ad infinitum.

Yes, unless the employee has signed a waiver saying they are waiving their right. My company worded it very strongly to ensure that it was 100% the choice of the employee, and that the company had not only offered to provide it, but had actually told us to do it. It was worded this way by order of the lawyers, to ensure that the company was not going to be fined.

Now as to your previous experience with your large publishing company and the foreign division and the company lawyers who came up with the strongly worded waivers, I do not know what, or how, or why things progressed as they did, but I'm relieved (in a barely measurable sense) that you got a satisfactory outcome.

I DO know why they progressed as they did. The company said we had to take it, the employees refused, the lawyers looked into it and gave us a waiver.

However, your anecdotal tale of supposedly threading through some little-known legal loophole is extremely unhelpful as it sets expectations that this is standard practice that is available for all.

On a purely technical level, it IS available to all. But:

If you refuse these tests, you are setting yourself up for a showdown with your company.

Which I've been saying all along.

I'll tell you what. Since you seem to like linking the laws, you link to the one that says employees legally have to take the test. If you can show me that, I'll admit I'm wrong. But until then, the only legal obligation is on the employer, and employees do have the right to waive the test.

[Majestic]

How you could possibly construe my posts as being in any way in agreement with your faith-based belief in your right to waive your health exam, is the eighth fushigi of the world.

[Effected After]

How you can claim that employees are legally bound to get tested in the absence of any law requiring them to do so is the ninth.

[Genkii]

Ahh, so on the chance you may get a false positive, you should avoid getting tested altogether. Great logic there.

Did everyone on GP take an extra dose of stupid today? It's worse than usual.

Please be advised that your Optirectomy operation is scheduled for 8:00 a.m.

The purpose of this operation is to sever the cord that connects your eyes to your rectum and, hopefully, get rid of your s***ty outlook on life. It has been noted that you have been in less than perfect humor lately.

[YokohamaTommy]

I am surprised by the responses. I guess I am too rational.

Here's what I think you should do:
Get all sort of anxiety over it, make a long an unnecessary post on GP about it, and then do what you were going to do anyway.

It is interesting to me, though, that the responses so far indicate a passive response to this system.

Because no one gives a ____.
What do you think they'll do with your personal information that either they or someone else doesn't already have?
Personal privacy is as dead and gone. Deal with it.

Just get the damn test and be done with it, and thank god you live in a society which even has such pedantic conundrums.

[Genkii]

Here's what I think you should do:
Get all sort of anxiety over it, make a long an unnecessary post on GP about it, and then do what you were going to do anyway.




Because no one gives a ____.
What do you think they'll do with your personal information that either they or someone else doesn't already have?
Personal privacy is as dead and gone. Deal with it.

Just get the damn test and be done with it, and thank god you live in a society which even has such pedantic conundrums.

Stop talking so much sense.

[Nagoya_hope]

Just wanted to chime in about the earlier point that all testing is good and not testing is foolish.

This would be true if all tests were benign, but that is not the case.

People in Japan are probably the most X-Rayed in the world and according to the link below, it is estimated that it results in the creation of 3.2 percent of all cancers in Japan.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn2...l#.T_D3WbVBmSo

For my annual I usually pick and choose which tests I get from the menu. This has never caused me an issue or required an explanation on my part.

[John Grey]

Is it possible to test for prostate cancer other then the finger method?

There is only one single test for prostate cancer, that is a biopsy. They use a hollow needle and stick it in, take out the sample and test this......

The finger is used to test if the volume of your P has increased. Something you will know already if it is the case, if you experience that peeing is less automatic as it used to be.... The increase is not used by cancer almost all of the time. The bad news is that the non-cancerian growth can make in necessary to have an operation which has serious side effects. More often than the doctors will tell you before.... Read Philip Roth's books...

A PSA test tells you basically nothing at all. It will give an incredible amount of false positives.
Yes, P cancer can spread and kill you, but.... Almost all men that are in the danger zone die of other causes long before the P cancer will.

[John Grey]

Ahh, so on the chance you may get a false positive, you should avoid getting tested altogether. Great logic there.

Did everyone on GP take an extra dose of stupid today? It's worse than usual.

False positives are the rule, not the exception for prostate cancer...

Not everything is automatically wrong, just because you do not believe it.

[Guru]

Since I am practically in charge of J operation for my company, I have been using the same health report by editing the date. I am a license holder of 第１種衛生管理者; but, I take a quick short cut when my time is at stake. Unless your company has more than 50 workers, you can get away with some easy fixing of the previous documents. The # of 50 workers is the key here.

[Effected After]

False positives are the rule, not the exception for prostate cancer...

So are you saying that people shouldn't be tested because there is a risk they may receive a false positive?

[TJrandom]

So are you saying that people shouldn't be tested because there is a risk they may receive a false positive?

While a false positive is certainly not good - I'd rather have it than a false negative.

[John Grey]

So are you saying that people shouldn't be tested because there is a risk they may receive a false positive?

Read more careful...... the reason why should avoid the test, is that the PSA figure does not say anything at all. Your number may be skyhigh, yet you have nothing. And this is NOT the exception. And the second reason is, that almost EVERYBODY whose prostate shows cancer after an operation, would have died of other causes, like old age, before prostate cancer has any consequences.

Do the research...

[Effected After]

Wait, you mean that they only test for prostrate cancer at the medical checkup? Then what the hell did they do all those other non-anal related tests for?