Medical procedures have risk, some are small risk some are higher risk. There are none that are 100% safe. Doctors are supposed to evaluate if the risk is worth the value the procedure would supply.
What is the alternative to the status quo that you would propose?
Like Gd, Mn is toxic, but unlike Gd, Mn is naturally present in the body (and also in pineapples) which means that long-term accumulation is less likely. The main difficulty is the lack of strong enough complexing agents because of the tendency for zinc (naturally present at relatively high concentrations in the body) to steal the ligand from Mn, a problem currently being studied:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ange.202115...
I had a couple of MRIs recently and got curious about gadolinium contrast. Again, there is a non-zero risk, but if you eliminate the cohort with reduced kidney function and those getting regular repeated MRIs, the risk is comparable to the use of an I/V, which is how it’s administered.
The only thing that upset me was that the staff didn’t ask me verbally about kidney issues to double-check. They also didn’t remind me to drink a bunch of water to flush it out of my system. (Some articles recommend administering a diuretic.)
For that matter they didn’t check me properly form metal fragments either!
Similarly, I’ve had vaccinations administered where I had to remind the doctor to clean the area with alcohol first and to tap the syringe to get rid of the bubbles.
Bad procedures are more dangerous than the drugs being administered!
I got familliar with this condition by a random persons blog who go affected by this during normal MRI and also didn't expect to be part of 1-2%. Unfortunately the blog is now gone, and that post now only lives inside my RSS reader.
My dad was in this industry when nsf first came out. We would be dragged along to after hours family things at conferences. Doctors openly said they gave contrast off label at dosages not approved by the FDA for organ systems not approved by the Fda. Even children. I'm sure they had their reasons, but I'm also sure they never disclosed the possibility of nsf and just told parents their kids needed it, because they admitted it.
Bit different. & under the context of vaccination being an aggressive, government-led, initiative to enforce a medical procedure on their body.
> 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'.
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?
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?