My understanding was that gadolinium was already only used in cases where a normal MRI would be ineffective.
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?
There’s really a risk vs benefit. If you have a brain tumour you need contrast to assess the type of tumour, its growth, if it’s a glioma whether it’s transformed and so on. If someone is being given contrast it is going to change their clinical management.
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?
Nobody explains shit like this. They will turn down the risks because if they were honest, most wouldn't accept that risk. Because the risk is PERMANENT life changing condition.
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?