RE: medical practice?

["David Adcock" <david@dcsmserver.med.sc.edu>]

Date sent:      	Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:56:01 -0500 (CDT)
Send reply to:  	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
From:           	Douglas Simpkin <dsimpkin@execpc.com>
To:             	Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject:        	RE: Occupational vs. Medical Exposures


Would Dr. Adcock want me, as a diagnostic medical physicist, to deem which
of his prescribed medical exposures were unnecessary?

This whole topic is a bit ridiculous. The regulatory folks and the
diagnostic physicists should never be in the position of telling physicians
how to practice medicine.

*******
REPLY
*******

But no one has suggested that.

Still, it does seem possible for the physicists to be more effective 
in reducing medical exposure.  I don't know of anyone who thinks 
that we are getting the most information from the least possible 
exposure.  And I believe that the thoughtful opinion of a physicist 
about the procedural methods (even including number of images) 
would be welcomed by most physicians who are involved in 
medical imaging.  Certainly, there is greater potential to reduce 
unnecessary (no health benefit) population exposure from medical 
use than from occupational sources. 

In my opinion, the situation could be greatly improved if physicists 
had a higher profile in the medical imaging "team".  Remember, 
most medical images in the US are made in the office of 
physicians who are not radiologists.


David Adcock



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html