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.

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] lte678@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 5 points 1 year ago

But that's directly related. People used to die when "catching a cold". We call that lung cancer nowadays. Same thing with many other branches of cancer.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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

[–] sxan@midwest.social 8 points 1 year 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.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean sure. But the data is likely comparative and can be looked at just within countries that have been getting autopsies since the 90s.

[–] Zippy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

And what is the stat in those countries?