AW: [ RadSafe ] AAPM Response to NEJM article on CT scans andcancerrisk
crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 2 12:05:31 CST 2007
In part what you say is true. However, it is possible
that people will sue if the do NOT get the CT scan
they want. The issue is the appropriate use of
medical technology. Not everyone who has had a head
injury should be getting a CT scan. Not everyone who
as abdominal pain should get a CT scan.
We are a rich country, but it is absurd that
individuals can demand certain medical exams, e.g., CT
scans, or even treatments because they want it.
People who have paid for "boutique" CT scans at often
come away with the idea that a CT scan in of itself is
a medical test. It is not. A physician needs to put
together all of the data to determine if there is a
medical problem. Because the person may have an
"abnormal liver" reported on the CT exam may not be a
medical or health problem. The liver may be different
from the one you see in a textbook. Only a physician
should be evaluating the persons health.
The real harm is that the person may demand further
tests that add cost to medical insurance and other
funds. I believe that it was reported several years
ago where about 20 persons who had CT scans at one
"boutique" were told that they had "abnormal livers."
After expensive medical tests and even exploratory
surgeries, no person had a pathology.
--- Sandy Perle <sandyfl at cox.net> wrote:
> The difference is that the USA is litigation happy.
> Everyone sues everyone for anything.
> It's about protecting one's business, and,
> protecting one's a**.
> Sandy Perle
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." -- Sir Winston Churchill
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
More information about the RadSafe