Is Theranos’ ‘blood testing for all’ a responsible selling proposition?

Theranos’ recent troubles on their blood testing (Walgreens halting expansion, FDA halting nanotainers as ‘uncleared medical devices’ and last week chain grocery/drugstore Safeway dropping their $350 million deal for 800 locations) have been well covered in media both here and elsewhere. But what if their Unique Selling Proposition–that people should have the ‘basic human right’ to order up their own inexpensive blood tests and then be responsible for their own interpretation–is counter-productive for many patients? After all, it’s what Theranos has been organized and raised $400 million+ on. Dr Robert Wachter of UCSF, who is no top-down Ezekiel-esque ‘nanny stater’, lends a caution: “There are a lot of companies, including Theranos, that have an interest in making you believe that more data will magically make you healthier. It won’t, at least not in the short-term.” When is ’empowerment’ confusing without recourse to interpretation? Some results are easier to read than others. Does having the data make the average person healthier for real? Personally, this Editor would welcome the ability to walk into her local Walgreens and order up a few to see what’s up–but then again she can do her own research and ask a doctor or nurse to help. Who can (inexpensively) close the interpretation gap? Theranos is wrapped in scandal but goes hard to change laws to its advantage (Mashable)