> I've always felt the "could be harmful" was a rationalization by radiologists worried about their job security
Surely concern for the well-being of the patient figures in there somewhere...
Or imagine this: A liver lesion is incidentally discovered on your abdominal CT performed for unrelated reasons. Its radiographic characteristics are equivocal. Additional imaging studies fail to completely exclude the possibility of a liver malignancy. You undergo a biopsy. But the biopsy is complicated by hemorrhage. Surgery is required. You develop a post-operative nosocomial infection. etc. etc.
To the extent that risks along this chain of unfortunate events is known, yes, warnings could put some of the quantified decision making in the patient's hands. Well, except for the rampant innumeracy in the general population...
Surely concern for the well-being of the patient figures in there somewhere...
Or imagine this: A liver lesion is incidentally discovered on your abdominal CT performed for unrelated reasons. Its radiographic characteristics are equivocal. Additional imaging studies fail to completely exclude the possibility of a liver malignancy. You undergo a biopsy. But the biopsy is complicated by hemorrhage. Surgery is required. You develop a post-operative nosocomial infection. etc. etc.
To the extent that risks along this chain of unfortunate events is known, yes, warnings could put some of the quantified decision making in the patient's hands. Well, except for the rampant innumeracy in the general population...