The Lemon Fool

Are there pros and cons for getting annual blood tests for cholesterol and all the rest?

My wife used to live in England and as soon as she hit her 50s she started to get an annual "MOT" type blood test with, presumably, advice and/or treatment if anything wasn't within spec.

Now we live in Scotland and our GP practice doesn't offer anything like this as a matter of course (we're early 60s now). I don't know if this is universal across Scotland or if it's a local policy.

Can this be anything other than budget-related (penny-pinching)? Is there a health-related reason for not doing proactive testing?

Scott.

I'm not sure an annual blood test is necessary, but an occasional one can be a good idea.

When I reached 65 (in England) I received a short routine medical, which showed up surprisingly elevated blood pressure. My GP said 'It's a long time since you had a PSA test, we'll do a routine blood test anyway to find out what's going on'. Cutting a long story short, the PSA was OK, but my red blood cell count was way too high, showing that I had contracted polycythemia, which can be treated. That blood test saved my life, as undiagnosed it would have been fatal.

Every so often my GP surgery announces I need a blood test as I haven't had one for several years and I'm supposed to have them annually. It always comes with a vaguely accusatory tone as if I'm supposed to know this and ask for one proactively. Maybe they have a point but frankly if I let them, they'd have me medicalised (is that a word?) up to the eyeballs.

What is it the medical students say about the definition of a healthy person? ""Someone who hasn't been sufficiently screened"", IIRC.