The controversy should stop because studies with a rigorous methodology show that screening is useless public health: no validated test, no individual or collective benefit, no deposit administration. Why this force of a screening “anarchic” and independent of any standard of evidence? The physician must obviously respect the choices of a patient who refuses a profit or hesitates between several types of possible benefits. But what is the strange nature of this new ethics that suggests access to a choice harmful or no profit? Maintain a controversy exceeded is the most effective way to distribute its side wrong. Continue publishing on the PSA is “red herring”. Cease to be actors in a prostate agnosology, delete the PSA from “check-up” of our patients, refuse harmful choices of our anxious patients, the pretext of a nebulous neutrality for not choosing science. Refusing to choose is also a choice.