Re: A question of ethics

["Robert A. Jones" <raj6582@acs.tamu.edu>]

Holloway3@aol.com wrote:
> 
> >>>Don't we have an obligation to provide accurate dosimetry information<<
> 
>           Since 99% of the patients would not be able to evaluate dosimetry
> information,
> I think you are asking for something that has no real value.  The answer you
> were given
> was appropriate for most of the patients they treat.
> 
>                                                                        Robert
> Holloway

Howdy Radsafers,

This business of not informing patients of risk factors in the 
cost/benefit analysis by the doctor is precisely why this string has come 
up.  Most people can't decipher the information given them on the 
ingredients list of a cereal box, does that mean the ingredients should 
not be made manifest?  A doctor should explain the risk of having and not 
having the x-rays.  This is hard when some doctors don't know that alphas 
are particles, but full disclosure of risk should be made.  It is the 
ethical thing to do.  Would you want to have open heart surgery without 
full explaination?  In many peoples minds radiation poses more threat 
than having one's chest cracked open.  I believe that this sort of thing 
needs to be examined compassionately and ethically, not arrogantly.  The 
questions by the patient should be answered, even if the doctor has to 
research the answer.  The risk is not hard to explain.  Wasn't it Hellen 
Keller who said that life without risk is a fantasy?  Let's here some 
ethical responses Radsafers.

Robert A. Jones
RAJ6582@acs.tamu.edu