Some fair and interesting points.Here is the way that I look at...

Some fair and interesting points.

Here is the way that I look at this issue around later in time imaging...

A practitioner has a duty of care to obtain their patient's informed consent. Failure to obtain informed consent can lead to medical negligence claims (subject to what ends up occurring). As part of obtaining informed consent, a practitioner is required to advise their patient, amongst other things, as to any alternatives to the treatment that they are recommending (the risks, benefits etc.) (requirement might vary slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdictoin - but not by much). It is then up to the patient as to what course of treatment they undertake.

So obviously there are a few different permeations depending on what the reality ends up being...but if the practitioner didn't like later in time imaging for whatever reason (inconvenient, or not practical for them)...but it was available for the patient somewhere else...they would be obliged to advise their client in relation to the later in time imaging and the benefits of it etc. The patient will then get to make the choice. If the choice is as simple as, the later in time imaging has the best chance of detecting whether you have cancer - then I would think that the patient would choose the later in time imaging. Of course, there are all sorts of other factors that will go into the decision made by the client such as cost, accessibility etc. But the point is, the patient make their own treatment decisions.