Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;329:351 (7 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7461.351-b
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORThe views expressed by Dent et al about new interventional procedures and about interventional clinicians are disturbing, particularly in view of the positions held by the authors.1 Response from clinicians has been very poor. Is it apathy or acceptance?
Problems with interventional procedures were covered comprehensively, but the solutions proposed were for clinicians more training to evaluate procedures, for manufacturers to do more than the minimum, and for patients to be given more information. These are not proposals that are likely to assure safety for the unsuspecting patient, let alone set the field of interventional procedures alight.
Dent et al claim that new surgical and other interventional procedures are adopted without assessment of their safety and efficacy and offered to patients. This, in spite of the enforcement of clinical governance and the plethora of organisations responsible for patients' interests? There is an underlying moral and ethical dimension. Validity
Anton E Joseph, consultant radiologist
Mayday University Hospital, Croydon, Surrey CR7 7YE aejoseph@hotmail.com