[Magdalen] Radiologists

[Allan Carr]

I think, as usual, we're arguing past each other. I used the word
interpretation, which the radiologists themselves use, you used the word
diagnosis.

If I remember, I'll ask my neurologist if he usually gets the images. This
is a guy who has written a number of papers and won quite a few medical
awards, so he's not a nobody physician.


On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Jay Weigel <jay.weigel at gmail.com> wrote:

> A radiologist can say what he *sees*. S/he does not diagnose. However, the
> physician *does* look at the actual images, unless s/he is a damn poor
> doctor. The physician diagnoses. That's how it works. And trust me, I've
> seen a LOT of docs look at a whole hell of a lot of x-rays in my career.
>
> If the radiologist had actually diagnosed me 3 years ago, I'd have been in
> a world of trouble. Thank God he didn't, and my GYN and the surgeon she
> referred me to both knew what the hell they were looking at, because that
> radiologist was not only in left field, he was damn near in the wrong ball
> park. I took comfort in remembering what a friend of my daughter's had once
> said about her radiologist father...."He knows a lot about radiology, but
> he doesn't know much of anything about any other kind of medicine."
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Allan Carr <allanc25 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't understand the recent negative discussion of radiologists. I have
> > had a number of MRIs and several CT scans and, as far as I know, the
> > radiologist always interprets the results and sends a signed report to
> the
> > physician who ordered them. This last physician then shares those results
> > with the patient and, as far as I know, never looks at the actual images.
> > Nowadays, that might not be so difficult with computerized images but I
> > don't think it's generally done, at least, not here in California.
> >
> > Why would someone not trained in radiology be more competent than a
> > radiologist in interpreting images?
> >
>



-- 
Allan Carr