As usual, this is another of BMJ’s useful publications of practical use.
The authors have excellently highlighted the importance of adequately
screening and counselling patients before offering them radioactive
iodine.
In general, clinicians adequately counsel patients to ensure avoidance of
post radioiodine treatment exposure to pregnant women and children. It is
common practice to give information leaflets explaining the restrictions
following the treatment. As clinicians we are rightly concerned regarding
the safety of the people around the patient, but tend to forget about pet
animals at home. While it may be possible for some to avoid exposure to
other people, it may not be possible for all to avoid close contact with
their own pet animals. The amount of radiation that these pet animals are
exposed to and the risks therein to these animals are unclear. Patients
may wish to consider this risk before they consider opting for radioactive
iodine treatment as the radiation emitted, however small, may in effect,
be perceived as relatively unacceptable for their small pets. Pet
animals, their safety and well being, are as important to some, as the
people around them. Due consideration should be given to all risks, real
as well as perceived, so as to enable the patients to make an informed
choice.
While discussing and advising treatment options with patients , to ensure
radiation safety, it is necessary to obtain a comprehensive overview of
the patients home, occupational and social circumstances, including
holiday plans and possible future exposure to radiosensitive electronic
as well as biotechnology equipments during work or travel. Although
patients working with radiation sensitive equipments are usually expected
to be well informed and are likely to volunteer this information during
consultation and can be expected to take due precautions subsequently, it
is the uninformed lay patient, who is likely to walk into an unpleasant
and completely avoidable situation like the one described by the authors.
Rapid Response:
Radiation safety after Radioactive iodine
Dear Editor,
As usual, this is another of BMJ’s useful publications of practical use.
The authors have excellently highlighted the importance of adequately
screening and counselling patients before offering them radioactive
iodine.
In general, clinicians adequately counsel patients to ensure avoidance of
post radioiodine treatment exposure to pregnant women and children. It is
common practice to give information leaflets explaining the restrictions
following the treatment. As clinicians we are rightly concerned regarding
the safety of the people around the patient, but tend to forget about pet
animals at home. While it may be possible for some to avoid exposure to
other people, it may not be possible for all to avoid close contact with
their own pet animals. The amount of radiation that these pet animals are
exposed to and the risks therein to these animals are unclear. Patients
may wish to consider this risk before they consider opting for radioactive
iodine treatment as the radiation emitted, however small, may in effect,
be perceived as relatively unacceptable for their small pets. Pet
animals, their safety and well being, are as important to some, as the
people around them. Due consideration should be given to all risks, real
as well as perceived, so as to enable the patients to make an informed
choice.
While discussing and advising treatment options with patients , to ensure
radiation safety, it is necessary to obtain a comprehensive overview of
the patients home, occupational and social circumstances, including
holiday plans and possible future exposure to radiosensitive electronic
as well as biotechnology equipments during work or travel. Although
patients working with radiation sensitive equipments are usually expected
to be well informed and are likely to volunteer this information during
consultation and can be expected to take due precautions subsequently, it
is the uninformed lay patient, who is likely to walk into an unpleasant
and completely avoidable situation like the one described by the authors.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests