Slashdot Mirror
FDA Cracking Down On X-ray Exposure For Kids
ericjones12398 writes "The Food and Drug Administration is proposing that manufacturers of X-ray machines and CT scanners do more to protect children from radiation exposure. If companies don't take steps to limit X-ray doses, the agency may require a label on their new equipment recommending it not be used on children. X-rays and CT scans can provide doctors with lots of useful information. But the radiation that creates the helpful images also increases a person's risk for cancer. There's been an explosion in the use of imaging tests. And rising radiation doses, particularly from CT scans, have drawn concern. The cancer risk increases with the dose of X-rays received during a person's lifetime, so kids' exposure is particularly important. It's also the case that children are more sensitive to X-ray damage. The FDA is also telling parents to speak up. If a doctor orders a test or procedure that uses X-rays, parents shouldn't be afraid to ask if it's really necessary. Also, it doesn't hurt to ask if there's an acceptable alternative, such as ultrasound or MRI, that doesn't rely on X-rays."
Radiation will be especially bad for children, since any mutation their cells acquire will be passed on to all daughter cells. For a growing child that will be a lot more cells than for adults who are only replacing their cells.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
...insist on these rules also applying to the TSA?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I realize this may not be possible because they'd be costing Chertoff ^W^W sympathizing with terrorists, but the FDA should work on TSA body scanners too while they're at it. In medicine, doctors are at least remotely concerned about how much radiation people are exposed to. The TSA is only concerned with keeping people in line, maintaining a security theater, and spending/receiving lots of public money. Limiting children's exposure to X-rays is a respectable, important cause, and not all children will travel by air, but it will all be wasted if the kids run through too many body scanners with traveling parents. Plus, parents will probably not know anything about body scanners, and will believe the TSA agents when they say the scanners are "perfectly safe".
Also, it doesn't hurt to ask if there's an acceptable alternative, such as ultrasound or MRI, that doesn't rely on X-rays.
"There is, but it is not covered by your health insurance."
It's worth noting that the Society for Pediatric Radiology has had a campaign (http://www.pedrad.org/associations/5364/ig/) called Image Gently for a couple years now to raise awareness of this in the radiology community, and in general the trend us towards doing more with MRIs, especially with children.
If the doctor doesn't need to do an x-ray, then performing one is negligent.
It's nowhere near that simple. Like most medical procedures, imaging has costs (in a medical sense) and benefits. The medical "cost" of performing a few radiographs of a potentially broken limb are very low, but the diagnostic benefit is very high. The medical "cost" of doing a thoracic CT is significant enough that every radiologist thinks it over in some detail before ordering one - the radiation dose is several orders of magnitude higher than a single peripheral radiograph. However, the diagnostic benefit in many circumstances is so thoroughly outweighed by the tiny risk of cancer that the CT is often worthwhile. There are many borderline circumstances though, where it's simply a judgment call as to whether the radiation dose is worthwhile to obtain the image. What about a person who loses consciousness and falls, doesn't remember whether he hit is head, but shows no signs of brain injury? Is a head CT worthwhile? Most ER docs say yes, but some would wait and see if any neurological symptoms appear. The increased cancer risk from radio-imaging in children has to be balanced against the increased sensitivity of children to injury, the difficulty of using other (more subjective) non-imaging diagnostic approaches with children, and the increased impact on quality of life of a missed diagnosis in a child. Bottom line: There is no clear answer as to whether radiological imaging is worth the risk in some cases. I tend to believe that radiation exposure is less harmful than most people make it out to be, and that the established limits for exposure are already extremely cautious, and there's little reason to avoid most imaging procedures. At the same time, I am reluctant to get repeated abdominal CT's for my kidney stones because I know that if the procedure is repeated every time I have a problem my cumulative exposure will eventually be very substantial.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
(Doesn't change my opinion that all full-body airport scanners are a waste of money, and xray backscatter scanners in particular should be banned.)
But the FDA is right to focus on over-prescribed medical xray procedures.