About a million people aged below 50 die of cancer annually, a study says, projecting another 21 percent rise by 2030.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I think the argument they're making is that detecting that a death is caused by cancer is probably not an advanced affair requiring new diagnostic technology.

Personally, I think it's an interesting question, given that it stands to reason that cancer, by the time it has caused death, should be pretty easily detectable in any sort of autopsy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    A post-mortem is not what most people think of when talking about cancer diagnostics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well, the article refers to both :)

    I think you'd be right about the "number of diagnoses" statement in the title, but I think the discussion is about the deaths due to cancer, which have also increased and would not have as strong of a correlation for the reasons others mentioned

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    How many people are getting autopsies in rural Afghanistan or India?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    Even in the US, autopsies are not always performed. Ima quote WebMD because I'm bone idle:

    Although laws vary, nearly all states call for an autopsy when someone dies in a suspicious, unusual, or unnatural way.

    Many states have one done when a person dies without a doctor present. Twenty-seven states require it if the cause of death is suspected to be from a public health threat, such as a fast-spreading disease or tainted food.

    According to a 2012 DOJ report, only 8.5% of US deaths result in autopsy.

  • source
  • parent