4 ms·
I don't think that's what they're especially worried about; those are fairly minor. Instead, think about interacting with someone who a) is so convinced that t
by mattkrause 7y ago
I don't think that's what they're especially worried about; those are fairly minor.
Instead, think about interacting with someone who a) is so convinced that they need an exploratory MRI but b) can't convince a doctor of that need. I'd be afraid that either I'll be stuck dealing with someone perseverating over a totally normal anatomical variation (and everyone has a few). If they get sick later, I might also get dragged into a debate over whether I should have noticed something on that scan, done a different scan, or whatever, possibly with big legal implications.
This is why our techs will happily scan a fruit or something, but don't run an ad-hoc clinic.
- ska 7y agoI agree that in the parent comment case, there is no reason to risk a review or lawsuit which is probably mainly why a clinician wouldn't do it; I alluded that that in another comment. This one was specifically a comment about "zero risk" on MRI, it's not true. Low risk, sure. But people have been hurt. I also suspect any clinician is going to look askance at a low risk action that isn't necessary, but the potential liability is the kicker here.
- mattkrause 7y agoIt's pretty close. Nothing is totally risk free, but compared to most medical procedures--and most activities of daily living--MRIs are a walk in the park. For a subject with no implanted devices, I would bet the drive to the scan center is much more dangerous. I just flipped through MAUDE (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=8367269&pc=LNH https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/d...) and I couldn't find any adverse events that were more severe than a small burn or blister.
- ska 7y agoAgree it's low risk, I was being pedantic. There have been deaths of course, also, but not due to normal operation.