19 ms·

There's a big difference between not getting the MRI and getting the MRI without gadolinium. My suggestion is to ensure that people know the risks outside of ju

There's a big difference between not getting the MRI and getting the MRI without gadolinium. My suggestion is to ensure that people know the risks outside of just the people who work in it. I'm not sure how that didn't get across in my original comment. With your comprehension skills, you are at an increased risk of falling victim to this exact scenario

bonsai_spool 1y ago
>>> Yes. The problem is that it's common in the industry. But it's ultimately up to the patient. Maybe alone. Pretty much guaranteed scared. Undereducated, worrying about their likely life threatening potential illness or injury. That's basically under duress. > There's a big difference between not getting the MRI and getting the MRI without gadolinium. My suggestion is to ensure that people know the risks outside of just the people who work in it. I'm not sure how that didn't get across in my original comment. With your comprehension skills, you are at an increased risk of falling victim to this exact scenario I don't see anything wrong with the GP's comprehension skills. Anyway, every procedure has risk - and no procedure is recommended if there is not an offsetting clinical benefit. There are clear guidelines for when gadolinium is to be used for an MRI and the guidelines factor in risk for 'NSF'.
bawolff 1y ago
My understanding was that gadolinium was already only used in cases where a normal MRI would be ineffective. I don't know how the risk is actually communicated to patients. I imagine it varries by country. However, normal medical ethics would be to explain risks to the patients. Is there a reason to believe that isn't happening?
- whatevaa 1y ago
  Nobody explains shit like this. They will turn down the risks because if they were honest, most wouldn't accept that risk. Because the risk is PERMANENT life changing condition.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    There is a risk of a permanent life changing condition when you take a bite of food, or have your blood drawn.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- MrWB 1y ago
  There’s really a risk vs benefit. If you have a brain tumour you need contrast to assess the type of tumour, its growth, if it’s a glioma whether it’s transformed and so on. If someone is being given contrast it is going to change their clinical management. It seems an odd fixation of just MR contrast when the same could be said of all drugs. Does your doctor/surgeon go into the minutiae of all drugs and possible consequences? By this line of thinking, saline is not without risks, should they go into depth about that? People already poorly retain information or even comprehend it at appointments or interventions, is there any point adding more burden onto their attendances?

bonsai_spool 1y ago

>>> Yes. The problem is that it's common in the industry. But it's ultimately up to the patient. Maybe alone. Pretty much guaranteed scared. Undereducated, worrying about their likely life threatening potential illness or injury. That's basically under duress. > There's a big difference between not getting the MRI and getting the MRI without gadolinium. My suggestion is to ensure that people know the risks outside of just the people who work in it. I'm not sure how that didn't get across in my original comment. With your comprehension skills, you are at an increased risk of falling victim to this exact scenario I don't see anything wrong with the GP's comprehension skills. Anyway, every procedure has risk - and no procedure is recommended if there is not an offsetting clinical benefit. There are clear guidelines for when gadolinium is to be used for an MRI and the guidelines factor in risk for 'NSF'.

bawolff 1y ago

My understanding was that gadolinium was already only used in cases where a normal MRI would be ineffective. I don't know how the risk is actually communicated to patients. I imagine it varries by country. However, normal medical ethics would be to explain risks to the patients. Is there a reason to believe that isn't happening?

whatevaa 1y ago
Nobody explains shit like this. They will turn down the risks because if they were honest, most wouldn't accept that risk. Because the risk is PERMANENT life changing condition.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  There is a risk of a permanent life changing condition when you take a bite of food, or have your blood drawn.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
MrWB 1y ago
There’s really a risk vs benefit. If you have a brain tumour you need contrast to assess the type of tumour, its growth, if it’s a glioma whether it’s transformed and so on. If someone is being given contrast it is going to change their clinical management. It seems an odd fixation of just MR contrast when the same could be said of all drugs. Does your doctor/surgeon go into the minutiae of all drugs and possible consequences? By this line of thinking, saline is not without risks, should they go into depth about that? People already poorly retain information or even comprehend it at appointments or interventions, is there any point adding more burden onto their attendances?