Medical 'mistakes' vs. 'administrations'

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Radsafers,

Consider the following report in today's New York Times in light of our
policies and the past discussions of the trivial matters and consequences of
nuclear medicine medical misadministrations.

We are subject to grotesque double standards, mostly done to ourselves. The
public therefore perceives radiation as an extreme and undue risk. A lot of
what they accept medically is because they are NOT told, they don't know,
about fictional "RADIATION RISKS," but accept that the medical professionals
(that they see directly) say that such procedures are "safe"! as Al Tschaeche
and others have noted. Fear mongering about medical radiation is just
beginning, and as long as we continue to misrepresent radiation risks, more
will reject important tests and therapies. ICRP/NCRP are not the only ones
guilty of promoting radiation phobia. 

As recently noted, we can't succeed if our premise is to be "perfect" and then
constantly 'fail' when an 'error' is made a 'catastrophe.' And then redouble
our efforts, and costs, to again make the false promise of being "perfect,"
instead of "safe". 

The url for the 'rest of the story,' if you can get to it today, is:
http://search.nytimes.com/partners/iib/services/bin/fastweb?getdoc+iib-site+iib-site+115+0+wAAA+environment

(Though you may have to 'patch it together' in your locator window :-) or I
can forward it.

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================

New York Times:  January 24, 2000

 U.S. Health Officials Reject Plan to Report Medical Mistakes 
 By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 -- Federal health officials say they are unwilling at this
time to embrace the National Academy of Sciences' recent call for a new
federal law requiring hospitals to report all mistakes that cause serious
injury or death to patients. 

 The proposal came from the academy's Institute of Medicine, which also
recommended that the information on medical errors be made available to the
public. 

 Some federal health officials said the proposal for mandatory public
reporting could have unintended consequences and might elicit less information
than a well-designed, well-run system of voluntary reporting. So far, federal
health officials said, they have been unable to agree on the right mix of
mandatory and voluntary reporting. 

 But members of Congress are nonetheless moving ahead with plans to require
some new form of reporting, which could resemble the comprehensive system used
by airlines and federal agencies to report aviation accidents and safety
hazards. 

 In its report, issued in late November, the Institute of Medicine said that
medical errors caused 44,000 to 98,000 deaths a year -- more than the number
resulting from auto accidents, cancer or AIDS, and far more than the numbers
killed or injured in plane crashes each year. 

 When the academy presented its report to President Clinton on Dec. 7, he
instructed federal health officials to evaluate the proposals and report back
by Feb. 5. Mr. Clinton seemed to favor mandatory reporting of serious errors,
as recommended by the academy. But doctors and hospitals fear that such
reports could expose them to more lawsuits, liability and damages. 

 Dr. John M. Eisenberg, who is leading the administration's review of the
proposals, said, "We are generally enthusiastic about the framework of the
Institute of Medicine report." But he said officials were not prepared to
endorse mandatory reporting of serious medical errors at this time.
<continued>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html