That doesn't sound remotely like full disclosure. In your shoes I might even consider legal action...........
Bet you did not sign anything which gave permission for this, unless you had to sign a blanket waiver before treatment.
----- Original Message -----
I have to respond to this post because I recently had an MRI with contrast, and a metal toxicity test revealed that my barium and gadolinium levels were off the charts. I was at a complete loss to guess where those toxins could have come from, so much so that I googled them together and wouldn't you know, they are used together in contrast solutions for MRIs! NO one told me until I was actually IN the MRI machine that I would be having an IV, and they were certainly not up front with me about the potential risks. I was nervous about the IV when the lab tech came in with his little wheely cart and IV tubes, and asked specifically what the IV was for, whether it was necessary, and what potential side affects were. I was only told that I might feel a little sting in my arm, and the the solution should flush out of my system in a few days. I was not told that it could have caused me acute kidney failure, or in some rare cases, death. I was not told that months later I woul d still have toxic levels of barium and gadolinium in my system. I took the metals test to rule out high levels of mercury in my system due to amalgam fillings, and possibly other metals, and to have an idea of how careful I should be with detoxing. I was concerned about mercury, but now I see that I need to be more concerned about the potential side affects of these two before unknown toxins in my system. I went to the hospital to try to heal, and now it seems I am more at risk than before. What frustrates me is that the lab technicians may have no clue themselves about the risks of this injection, or if they do, they certainly minimized them. I had the MRI because of a possible tumor in my pituitary, which was confirmed, but I will refuse any further contrast solutions that are not absolutely proven safe. I consider myself blessed that I didn't come home with some serious immediate health issues, and I'm praying that over time I will be able to safely detox and reverse any da mage that was done.
> Its a very difficult choice.
> I recently had to have a MRI with and without contrast, CT with contrast and a CT/PET scan with radioactive glucose.
> I cried and I mean really cried each and every time. infact at the PET scan they had to get the doctor to come talk to me, as I was a mess and couldnt breathe, I was so frightened, I asked each and every doctor/nurse and tech I met, why they thought it was a good idea to throw so much radiation, which causes cancer at me, to see if I had cancer..
> Judging by my doctors reaction, as a previous poster asked and all the staff I sobbed too, they were all VERY encouraging, told me the hard facts and told me it was medically neccessary due to my condition. They ALL told me if it was me in their situation, they would have it done, knowing what they know.
> I still have panics about all I had done and will need done in the future.
> I took every suppliment I could find on the net which counteracts radiation, I increased my iodine and took the best Zeolite I could find, I also had bicarb/zeolite/clay and salt baths afterwards.
> It depend on your situation, ask if it is needed and if there is any other way, tell them your fears and see if they would choose the same.
> I really feel for you, it was one of my darkest days going through all that and now I live with the future it may bring and I have more to go through, for many years to come.
> I will refuse the contrast in the future but its loking like it will be yearly or at least 2 early CT scans
> I wish you luck xx
> > Short answer; DON'T DO IT< at least, I wouldn't. Firstly, I have Tinnitus; in most cases, Dr.'s don't KNOW what causes it, just several theories.Mine goes from 'not there', to mild buzzing, to roaring, and back again, and I have been unable to discern any pattern or 'why'.
> > Beyond that; the Dr. could (but can't, due to liability) say; there is a one in kajillion chance that this is caused by a tumor; the fact that it is on one side instead of both sides makes this a POSSIBILITY.
> > However, the odds are extremely against it.The only way to rule out a tumor, for sure, is to do a MRI, and WITH contrast gives us a clearer picture than without. Personally (the Dr. saying) I would advise against it, because of the extremely low odds, and the possible complications of the procedure.
> > However, he CAN'T say that, due to liability. Lawyer, at trial for malpractice establishes that Tinnitus on one side is technically ONE sign of a possible tumor, and Dr. advised against getting a test which would detect said tumor, and (even tho odds against it) it WAS a tumor; then he is 'guilty' of malpractice.So, he HAS to 'reccomend' the procedure. But, he's TRYING to tell you something;He's telling you "You don't have to do this NOW", and when you see or hear wording like "could possibly be indicative" think about that, carefully.
> > Really DEFINITIVE statement, there; "could possibly be indicative".
> > Anyway, like any decision regarding medical care, YOU have to live or die with the consequences.Personally, I wouldn't agree to the procedure. And, when you tell the Dr. of such a decision, and he writes it in your medical record, his 'ass is covered', liability wise.Watch for his reaction when/if you tell him you don't want the procedure; it will be a good indication of his 'true feelings'; dose he URGE you, strongly and even vehemently to 'reconsider', or does he just say, "Oh, O.K. Its your decision,and I'm 'fine' with that."