Those articles don't really say what the "botch" is. Was it the anesthesia? The actual endoscopic examination? Removal of polyps?

If its the polyp removal, I can certainly see how that could lead to problems. But you're a little stuck: even if you use another technique to do the scan, you still have to remove any polyps you find, don't you?

Healthy skepticism of procedure over-prescription is reasonable and maybe even wise, but I wouldn't really take the celebrities section of USA Today as a data point, maybe not even as a reliable anecdote.

Based on your concern, the question is whether 'botched' procedures are more or less of a risk (both in incidence and consequence) than non-screening.

I had to start getting colonoscopies ahead of schedule because my dad never did, until it was too late. He was scared of doctors after he associated them with family members' unpleasant deaths.

Read the safety statistics and let it override the anecdotes. Colon cancer is easy to prevent and a horrible way to die.

Nothing you do is risk free.

It is one of the most common procedures and is generally very safe. Even a botched procedure probably just means some temp discomfort after the procedure. Much better than the alternative.

You can do a FIT test instead which can be done at home.

My doctor actually doesn't recommend colonoscopy until age 50. But starting at age 40 they have you do the "poop in a box" test instead, and then only have you come in if that shows anything.

The complication rate for colonoscopy is about 3 in 1000, and that is skewed towards people who have polyps, which in and of themselves could be dangerous if not removed.

So it's always a risk tradeoff. You can skip the procedure and risk the effects of the disease it's supposed to detect instead. But if you do the math, you're statistically better off doing the procedure.