InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 3
Posts 138
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/26/2009

Re: None

Wednesday, 12/09/2009 11:53:10 PM

Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:53:10 PM

Post# of 59549
finally, for tonight... on dose...

we have already touched on this to a degree... in the discussion a couple weeks ago on imaging of obese/morbidly obese... the article which i posted at that time had to do with resetting some common dose parameters on dose charts as the "old school" reference phantoms may not account for the body habitus (i.e., type) in today's population... i.e., a more heavier set population... this would go hand in hand with increasing medical radiation exposure... at a population level... a health physics concept.

however, what else plays a role is medicolegal issues and alternatively healthcare economics --- [although i don't want to discuss the latter] --- you think a doctor isn't going to order at least plain films (an "x-ray") if you come to him/her with some sorta ache or complaint... the doc doesn't want to get sued down the road...for not doing so...

there was actually a really good discussion on this on an NPR program...

an ER doc at a teaching cite did not want to perform a CT on a girl who came into the ER following a car wreck or something...as the doc didn't think it was necessary and the CT wouldn't show anything of relevance. the father went bersek... although, a rational discussion took place... finally, although it was against his medical opninion, the doc finally gave in just to get on with performing other stuff he had to do and not "waste" anymore time and go on to see other patients... the CT scan was negative (i.e., it didn't show anything).