Maximum Protection of the Patient - Essay Example

Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction ‘Gonad shielding in paediatric pelvic radiography: disadvantages prevail over benefit’ is the headline of the article written by Marij J. Frantzen, Simon Robben, Alida A. Postma, Johannes Zoetelief, Joachim E. Wildberger, and Gerrit J. Kemerink on the National Center for Biotech Information website. The authors being endowed with the medical prowess have clearly preached and taught the demerits of gonad shielding in paediatric radiography. Irregularities might occur during the continuous x-ray radiations and photography and in turn exposing the patient to more dangerous radiations. Gonad shielding has also been credited with unclear and concise x-ray photos. This would result to more radiations in order to get clearer photos. Medical practitioners are compelled to ensure maximum protection to their patient but the use of gonad shields has increased the number of exposures that the patients receive. Gonad shields are used to protect the patients’ reproductive organs from direct and continuous exposure but in their use unclear photographs are taken and thus the number of exposures the patients receives. The following is a review of the article and an in depth analysis of the authors and their works in the article. The Review and Analysis The article on gonad shielding and its extensive disadvantages when carried out in paediatric operations is written by a number of authors who collectively conduct experiments and studies in the field of x-ray operations and complications. The authors namely Marij J. Frantzen, Simon Robben, Alida A. Postma, Johannes Zoetelief, Joachim Wildberger, and Gerrit J. Kemerink are medical practitioners and members of the national council of biotech information. The authors are also credited with other informative articles and publishing in the medical practice. Marij J. Frantzen is reportedly a medical practitioner and lecturer at a university in Netherlands, Simon Robben is a Dutch national with en exquisite prowess in the medical field especially x-ray operations in a university in the Dutch republic and Alida A. Postma is also a medical practitioner from the European Nations and practicing medicine in Netherlands. Also, Johannes Zoetelief, Joachim Wildberger and Gerrit J. Kemerink are Dutch nationals with a great profession biased to Medical operations and teaching. Through their collective participation in the writing of the article, clear and vivid explanations have been laid down in the document. The document was published on 25th September 2011 on the National Center for Biotech Information website. This was after being received on 4th June 2011, revised on 24th July 2011 and accepted on 9th September 2011. It is also reported that the National Center for Biotech Information website is also a US National Library of Medicine in the National Institutes of Health. Considering the wordings and terminologies clearly utilized in the writing of the document, practitioners and policy makers in the medical field are the main target groups. In addition, patients and health workers who do not have an outstanding knowledge on the procedures and practice of x-ray and genital shielding are presented with information on how to handle and make recommendations on how they prefer the practice be carried out. Due to the wide range of audience who are expected to read the article, the authors are categorical in expounding and explaining the facts and ideologies that surround the notion of genital shielding. But the document is liable to critique due to the amount of vocabulary and statistics that they have used in the document. It is evident that people who have no prior knowledge on the medical practice would not find the document relevant and informative. It is clear from the start that the authors are focused on demonizing gonad shielding. Straight from the abstract, the objective is clearly spelled out as ‘To re-evaluate gonad shielding in paediatric pelvic radiography in terms of attainable radiation risk reduction and associated loss of diagnostic information’ (Frantzen, 2011). This exposes the reader to the document with a notion that it is full of critique. In addition, as the body of the article develops and invites more pessimism about gonad shielding. The authors are credited with numerous experiments which they vividly explain in the document. Initially, they determined the gonad shielding in paediatric pelvic radiography in terms of attainable radiation risk reduction and associated loss of diagnostic information. Then they evaluated the information gathered from a number of records which patients were undergoing the same treatment. Data was collected; analyzed and conclusive deductions were made. It is evident that the authors meant to convince and sensitize the readers of the possible dangers that might be looming on their health as a result of genital shielding. In the article, the authors have outstandingly utilized the words Radiography, Paediatric, Pelvis, Gonads and Radiation risk which are medical terms commonly used in the field of radiation operations and practices. Vividly, the authors have laid emphasis on these words to further emphasize and explain to the reader or more so people who have limited knowledge in the practice the dangers of demerits of gonad shielding during paediatric pelvic radiography. The authors explain that the gonad shields were in more than half of the operations carried out, not inserted well leading to blurred images on the screens. This would result to more exposure these radiations, further increasing the health threat to the patients. In the writing, this is supported by the chronological statements which gradually develop on the topic. In addition, comprehensive statistics which were collected after the study also emphasize the authors’ thesis that gonad shielding is not really necessary. After giving a scrutinizing check on the document it has been established that the main agenda that is being propagated by the document’s authors is that gonad shielding should be excluded from the radiographic operations (Fawcett, Barter & Radiol, 2009). It is also clear that the document is also intended to explain that gonad shielding is a practice that is aimed at protecting the patient’s reproductive organs from the hazardous radiations of the practice. Through its writing, the document sought to inform and completely convince the medical practitioners and patients the dangers that arise from the practice. To do this, the authors have utilized experiments and data analysis of past patients who partook in the practice. Undoubtedly, the scale to which the authors have skillfully outlined the information is adequate to convince the reader about the dangers of gonad shielding. The authors assume some basic information which would also be realized. For example, the authors clearly do not record the extent to which the radiations would harm the gonads if they are not properly shielded. Apart from the hereditary unfit genes being passed over to later generations, the authors do not identify and explain the effects of not protecting the gonads. Also, the authors expect the readers to understand and comprehensively realize the dangers in the practice. These implicit assumptions are only understood and valid to medical practitioners. Furthermore, it is evident that all the arguments in the document provide a one sided position of the argument. The document is full of convincing words and statistics which would clearly outweigh the advantages of gonad shielding. But due to the nature of damage that unprotected radiations can cause on the reproductive organs of the patients, the document is inadequately detailed to fully convince about the dangers of gonad shielding. I believe that the document is exempting the reader from another side of the story. The authors just lay down the troubles of gonad shielding but do not provide a fair copy of the advantages of gonad shielding to open field for supported and valid discussions where the pros and cons of the practice would be given. Just as the authors are hailed and praised for clear cut explanations of the demerits of gonad shielding, they do not provide the reader with information which could show how less advantageous the practice is when compared to the benefits. The document was published National Center for Biotech Information which is a national library for national institutes of health in the US. This is evidence enough that the society behind the publication of the document is public minded and is in the forefront of societies that champion for proper health procedures. In addition, the society is credited with disbursement of information that would sensitize the public about health issues. The document also displays the authors as well informed people who are deeply interested in their work because they indulge in research activities that would be beneficial to the public. Through the publication of the document, the society sees the document as a major information source for the formulation of policies and rational decision making which is a common view that I believe we share. It is evident that gonad shielding is a poor radiology practice. This is clearly explained by the statement by Frantzen et al. (2011) ‘Given the potential consequences of loss of diagnostic information, of retakes, and of shielding of automatic exposure-control chambers, gonad shielding might better be discontinued’. Conclusion Gonad shielding is a practice aimed at reducing the amount of radiations that could harm the reproductive systems of human beings. But with advanced technology in the radiography sector, the practice is facing critics since it is believed to bring more disadvantages rather than the intended merits. It has also been established that the practice is more costly than when gonad shielding has been ruled out of the operation. It is important to first identify the blinding factors that would make the use of gonad shielding important in radiography but should not be used if not necessary. References Fawcett S. L., Barter S.J., and Radiol, B. J. (2009). The use of gonad shielding in paediatric hip and pelvis radiographs. National Center for Biotech Information. 82(977):363-70. DOI 13. 1002/s14233-010-122-1. Frantzen, M.J., Robben, S., Postma, A. A., Zoetelief, J., Wildberger, J. and Kemerink, G. K. (2011). Gonad shielding in paediatric pelvic radiography: disadvantages prevail over benefit. National Center for Biotech Information. 3(1): 23–32. DOI 10.1007/s13244-011-0130-3. Read More