[Magdalen] Radiologists

Jay Weigel jay.weigel at gmail.com
Mon Feb 16 23:00:15 UTC 2015


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?
>


More information about the Magdalen mailing list