Re: A LNT Experience !!NOT!!

[muckerheide <muckerheide@attbi.com>]

Sorry Paul, you're dead wrong.  Mass. Adv Council on Rad Protection has had

this before us for many years - ALWAYS on the case for lower dose! I expect

a more typical state Adv Council, led by rad protection people with Drs. and

vendors, would readily put out such 'guidance,' and more. If we recommend

it, they'll do it (as long as everybody has to do it).



You're also wrong on "dentist responsibility." They have, and need, no rad

health effects knowledge, and little of doses, beyond what's "written on the

box."  They, nor MDs, know little more than the literate public about

radiation, and most even go so far as to believe the crap put out by the

regulatory agencies and their NCRP 'fellows.'



You'll have to kill the problem at the root. Blaming the dentist is as bad

as blaming the media! :-)



Jim 



> From: Paul lavely <lavelyp@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>



>> I have just had the following experience that has brought home to me

>> once again the poor risk choices forced on us by slavish adherence

>> to the linear non-threshold theory:

> 

> This had nothing to do with the LNT theory. This was a BDBAD, a

> BUSINESS Decision By a Dentist.

> 

> As you stated he (or she) did this because of his patients' fears of

> cancer. Why did he do it? Because it was easier than doing his job --

> to explain to his patients the clearly apparent benefit of the better

> quality x-ray. Why else? To pander to patients fears to assure that

> they would not seek a dentist who would do what they wanted. He made

> the conscious decision to sacrifice patient care so as to quell the

> uninformed concerns of other patients.

> 

> He could have had supplies of BOTH films (and protocols for use) and

> made a decision as to which was needed to get the ADEQUATE (not the

> best) medical information REQUIRED to treat a patient.

> 

> Had this developed into a serious medical problem because of the poor

> quality of the pictures and the patient had been harmed, a case could

> be brought against the dentist that could hinge on the quality of

> care and did the care rise to the standard of care required. In this

> case, his admission against interest would make it hard to defend.

> That is, he admits his decision was based on "because of his

> patients' fears of cancer, he uses extremely fast film." That is, he

> allowed some patients concerns to decrease the medical care he gives.

> Additionally, (and perhaps his worst statement) was "he agrees with

> me entirely about the foolishness of forcing the use of

> lower-definition film." There was no force here, he made a BUSINESS

> decision to do this.

> 

> You state that he choose to use poorer quality x-rays to pander to

> his patients fears. His duty here was to get not the best, but the

> adequate x-ray. Did he? What other quality of care decreasing

> decisions has he made solely to satisfy his patients irrational fears?

> 

> You have already been given treatment that unnecessarily resulted in

> two days of intense pain. A suggestion? "Let your fingers do the

> walking through the yellow pages" and then ask some questions about

> the quality of care.

> 

> You wrote that "Here we have x-ray, one of the most fantastic

> diagnostic tools ever invented, and we are hampering its use because

> of groundless fears brought on by a theory that has had no direct

> experimental confirmation, and precious little indirect evidence, of

> its validity." Sorry but the hampering was motivated by profit - not

> radiation fears.

> 

> You wrote "Isn't it time we took a public stand on this?" YES.

> Therefore, you should immediately notify the regulators over dental

> care in your state that this dentist is giving poor dental care to

> maximize his profits and that he is well aware that the concerns he

> is addressing are baseless. An editorial to the newspaper regarding

> dentists/doctors putting profits above patients is also in order.

> 

> Lets not blame poor dental or medical care on LNT, especially when

> the poor care is motivated by profit and not a health concern or LNT.

> 

> Finally, do you really believe that these peoples fears will change

> if we adopt a new model? Not likely.

> 

> 

> Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>

> 

> 

>> The tie-in with the LNT is that, because of his patients' fears of

>> cancer, he uses extremely fast film, which does not have the

>> definition of the slightly slower film.  So he had to take the

>> second x-ray (which sort of defeated the advantage of the lower

>> definition film anyway) and then had to take a chance drilling

>> through a crown into a healthy tooth.  Ironically, I had a regular

>> checkup last month, and had his technician been using

>> higher-definition film, the infection might have been caught much

>> earlier.  Even if I had still had to have the root canal, it might

>> hav! e saved me a few days of intense pain.  By the way, he agrees

>> with me entirely about the foolishness of forcing the use of

>> lower-definition film.  Thank you, I'll happily take the putative

>> risk that goes along with better-definition x-ray film!

>> 

>> Here we have x-ray, one of the most fantastic diagnostic tools ever

>> invented, and we are hampering its use because of groundless fears

>> brought on by a theory that has had no direct experimental

>> confirmation, and precious little indirect evidence, of its

>> validity.   Is this happening elsewhere in medical and dental

>> practice?  Isn't it time we took a public stand on this?

>> 

>> Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

>> ruthweiner@aol.com

> 

> 

> -- 



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/