feeling guilty over xray

Danielle3

hi there, a few months back my 2 year old fell , not a huge fall but that eve his leg would completely give under him but didnt seem to be in much pain i took him to doctor the next day and she said he was fine but to ring her in a few days if i "wanted a letter" for the a&e. i rang her 5 days later as he was still limping a bit and the leg gave again at one point. any way to try to cut very long story shorter i took him to hospital the doctor there said he was fine but they would xray hip and lower leg to be safe i did this and after ward i discovered the risk involved with xraying children. i am so desperately worried , guilty and panicked. i know it might sound stupid but i never even questioned what xrays actually were and was totally unaware of any links with cancer. i feel i let my child down to the point where i have risked his life and to make things worse i have searched the internet and find no good reason to have xrayed his hip, his leg yes but not hip. you think you are doing your best for your children but i have done something careless that could have dissasterous consequences. now in the mean time i have to say i spoke to radiation safety people and they assured me that what he got was the equivalent of a few days of background radiation (i didnt know about that either) and they also told me about the flying thing and the extra radiation you get when on a plane but i still feel i was over fussy, over reacted and put him in danger.

sorry for long post - dont know what to do

spadder

I don't think the staff would have x-ray'd your child if they thought it was dangerous. Stop worrying yourself. Everybody on the planet is exposed to radiation every day, nothing you can do about it.

Larianne

They x-rayed his hip and leg to be safe. Yes, he will have been exposed to some radiation but if it was dangerous, I'm sure the medical staff would not have done so.

Kids can pick up fractures quite easily as their bones are still growing. You did the right thing. It would be a worse outcome if your child had a fracture and nothing was done about it.

seamus

X-rays aren't all that dangerous, particularly to children whose tolerance for cell damage is miles above that of an adult's. He fell and he was limping. You were 100% right to have his leg and hip Xrayed. If the medical staff thought that the risk outweighed the benefit, they wouldn't have done it.

You weren't careless and the chances of it having "disastrous" consequences are less than the chances of you winning the lotto.

smelltheglove

I wouldnt worry about the xray at all, even the hiop, sometimes a broken or fractured bone can show up as pain elsewhere, my dad fractured his shin bone and returned to a&e 3 times with a didgy ankle before they even thought to check his shin, he had the fracture over 2 weeks before they found it so you were right to allow them to xray the hip.

Most recently my daughter had her ear lobe xrayed as the doctors didnt believe that a part of earring was lodged in there after infection, I didnt nor have since worry about any side effects, at the end of the amount of radiation is miniscule in the grand scheme of things.

January

I think the risk from xray is miniscule compared to the trouble your son would have had if he had a fracture/break that went unnoticed. Wouldn't have thought twice about it to be honest with you and I don't think you should if he falls again. Best to get these things checked out especially when they are so young.

KiLLeR CoUCh

Hi Danielle, you seem really worried so I'll say my peice about X-rays and see if that puts your mind at ease. I'm a physics student so I've spent a fair bit of time working with X-rays and various applications of them.

X-Rays are a type of electromagnetic radiation. That sounds worrying enough by itself but all the fear is in the name. Light is also a form of electromagnetic radiation, as are radiowaves, so we spend most of our time sitting in the path of some form of electromagnetic radiation and it's completely harmless. In the case of radiowaves for example, the waves are too large to even know we're there.

An X-Ray happens to be an extremely small type of wave, smaller than a light wave. In the case of a lightwave, if we get in the way, it creates a shadow. The light doesn't have enough energy to pass right the way through us. X-rays happen to have tons of energy so they can go straight through us without a bother except when they come to our bones. Our bones are the most dense part of out body so the X-rays stop dead when they reach them, and that creates a shadow, out X-Ray image.

The question now is, what happens when X-rays actually hit our bodies? Another way of referring to X-Rays is to call it "ionising radiation". To sum that up in a nutshell it means it has the ability to change the charge on an atom. Most atoms in out body are neutral, but start involving X-Rays in things and they can become positive or negative and start moving around and doing things they shouldn't. However this happens every single day to every one, regardless of whether you're near any form of radiation or not. You're not going to notice the occasional atom in your body going out of place, there's nothing you can do to prevent it. The danger lies if you spend too much time hanging around X-Rays, which is why a radiographer will sit behind lead lined glass but leaves you in the line of fire. One X-ray will do you no harm, but a lifetime of them will.

The same logic applies to background (natural) radiation. It's all around us and we can cope without a bother. Problems only occur when you decide to set up camp beside Chernobyl. There can be a lot of scaremongering about this sort of thing but please don't worry, I was working with an X-Ray machine just last week, and I'd count it as almost the safest thing in the lab.

Hope that helps a little

nesf

As others have said, one x-ray is fine and probably appropriate given a 2 year old can't properly describe their symptoms exactly! I really wouldn't worry about it!

As above, we're constantly exposed to radiation! It's only dangerous in large doses! The amount you'd get from one x-ray is well under this limit.

ash23

I had a lot of xrays as a child and so far, so good. No problems, no issues concieving a healthy child etc.
Once I hit puberty they began covering my uterus with lead in order to protect it. Lol, just see there you've a boy so thats not an issue


Much better to check it and be assured that he is ok than leave him with a possible fracture.
Don't over think it. There are kids out there who have dozens of xrays every year due to health issues. There are miniscule risks involved but nothing major and the good far outweighs the bad.

hallelujajordan

All medicine is about controlled risk, Every medication has side effects and there isn't a single medical procedure that doesn't carry some level of risk. It is the job of our medical professionals to weigh up the risks and make informed and appropriate decisions. In your case the risk that your child had a fracture was significantly greater than the very small risk associated with Xrays. . .

You did the right thing in your little mans best interest !

Same logic applies to the swine flu vaccine btw. . .

Danielle3

thank you all very much for your replies. i had a very long winded reply but had trouble posting it so ye are lucky!

killercouch i honestly do understand what you are explaining to me. i tell myself that we are constantly surrounded by radiation and he got a few days worth - but why then is there an EU Law solely there to limit unecessary xrays and to ensure that each one is justified. if they are as innocuous as what we experience every day then why does this legislation exist. is his one second xray exposure on the hip area the same as 3 days of background exposuire all over his body over a longer period.

hallelujajordan, i suppose i should have been aware that all medical procedures but i had never come across anything ominous about xrays. when i buy a bottle of calpol they give me an information leaflet and advise of any risks. i am baffled and angry that doctors can prescribe xrays for my child with questionable justification and absolutley no advice given to parents of risk. the hospital in question told me afterward that usually there are leaflets on the safety of xrays in the waiting area but werent sure why there wasnt any the day i was there. if i had read a leaflet on xrays and seen cancer on the same page i would have very carefully weighed up the benefit vs risk for my child but this decision was taken from me i feel. and while i do feel thick that i didnt know xrays were low dose radiation, any parent i have spoke to about this havent a clue either. incidentally his hip was xrayed. a hip injury in a child is rare and would be accompanied by severe pain. hip dislocation would feature visible signs and extreme pain. perthes disease which one doctor tried to suggest they were checking for is developmental , usually in older children and not related to a fall which is what happened to my child. i still have no idea why he had this xray. i feel i failed my child by being so mute and accepting during these hospital visits but i naievely put my trust in these doctors. its ironic - i always limited my childrens intake of antibiotics and then i zap them with radiation at the slightest sign of a limp!

thank you again

Danielle3

and killercouch by the same token if a chest xray for example is the same as a four hour flight and i know that a flight from munich to LA is 50 mSv which is what my son got then why is there not legislation to say that every plane journey should be considered beforehand because of the increased radiation exposure. there is nothing on the internet to say that a long haul flight will increase your risk of cancer but loads to say an xray will. im not being smart or anything but my confusion is so fraustrating

Joey the lips

I think you feel guilty more because your child needed the x ray. A bit like parents feel with the first anti biotic.

Dont beat yourself....

littlebug

Danielle how would you feel now if you hadn't got the x-ray and it turned out something was broken? Or if they had x rayed the foot and not the hip and it turned out there was something wrong with the hip? I don't believe that they do x rays on a child willy nilly but they have to be absolutely sure .... it would be negligent of them not to investigate fully or to let him home if there was any chance anything was broken. I got my little boys foot x rayed a while back and like you I was probably ...80-90%... sure there was nothing broken but that 10+% doubt made me make sure it was investigated fully. I have no qualms whatsoever now about having done so even though it turned out nothing was broken.

nesf

Danielle3 wrote: »

thank you all very much for your replies. i had a very long winded reply but had trouble posting it so ye are lucky!

killercouch i honestly do understand what you are explaining to me. i tell myself that we are constantly surrounded by radiation and he got a few days worth - but why then is there an EU Law solely there to limit unecessary xrays and to ensure that each one is justified. if they are as innocuous as what we experience every day then why does this legislation exist. is his one second xray exposure on the hip area the same as 3 days of background exposuire all over his body over a longer period.

hallelujajordan, i suppose i should have been aware that all medical procedures but i had never come across anything ominous about xrays. when i buy a bottle of calpol they give me an information leaflet and advise of any risks. i am baffled and angry that doctors can prescribe xrays for my child with questionable justification and absolutley no advice given to parents of risk. the hospital in question told me afterward that usually there are leaflets on the safety of xrays in the waiting area but werent sure why there wasnt any the day i was there. if i had read a leaflet on xrays and seen cancer on the same page i would have very carefully weighed up the benefit vs risk for my child but this decision was taken from me i feel. and while i do feel thick that i didnt know xrays were low dose radiation, any parent i have spoke to about this havent a clue either. incidentally his hip was xrayed. a hip injury in a child is rare and would be accompanied by severe pain. hip dislocation would feature visible signs and extreme pain. perthes disease which one doctor tried to suggest they were checking for is developmental , usually in older children and not related to a fall which is what happened to my child. i still have no idea why he had this xray. i feel i failed my child by being so mute and accepting during these hospital visits but i naievely put my trust in these doctors. its ironic - i always limited my childrens intake of antibiotics and then i zap them with radiation at the slightest sign of a limp!

thank you again

Hey, I've decided to move this thread from Parenting to Health Sciences since your concern is probably best dealt with by the medical professionals that frequent this forum.

For what it's worth, I think you'd have to search long and hard to find a GP in this country who would be careless about overexposer a two year old to X-rays and it's extremely likely that the test was worth getting done. That your son never had an X-ray before would be a plus factor in getting the test done from a danger point of view!

emtrgnmb

X ray of an extremity apprx. 0.001mSv

A day or so of background radiation.

X rays must be justified in the clinical setting because healthcare professionals must act in an ethical manner. They should therefore not expose patients to any unnecessary harm. All X rays must be clinically indicated and justifiable.

People get more concerned about CT scans, which involved exposure to 2-3 years of background radiation.

You have nothing to worry about.

Danielle3

thanks nesf i had no idea this category existed. in response to joey , my guilt lies in the fact that i believe that the xrays were not vitally needed and if they were i think that would remove any guilt that i feel. my guilt also lies in my ignorance of what risk i would put my child at. for me there is a big difference in unbalancing gut flora from an antibiotic and giving a dose of radiation!

sadly nesf i cant agree with you on the subject of doctors being careless about prescribing xrays. i completely believe that some are. there is a course in the mater hosp i think for non consultant doctors about radiations doses including justification of ordering xrays. i believe in my case when it came to the hip and leg xray the doctor was flippant and maybe i conveyed dissatisfaction when he examined my son and said he was fine that he wouldnt be able to climb the chair in the room if he wasnt but i remained silent at the time, just nodded i think and then he added, well we will xray the hip and leg to be safe, thats usually where problems occur.

what happened then is where this all started. i went into xray room the radiographer asked me why they wanted his hip xrayed. i replied that he had been limping since falling 5 days ago. she said they did not like to xray hips and started talking about chromozomes and dna and affecting his childrens children - i had no idea what she was on about! i said - i think i'll change my mind about the hip xray and she quickly said "well there is no scientific proof of any of this and anyway i have two children and i would if i was you" now its hard to argue when a woman who sees broken bones every day says this even after the dna thing. but again i was a mute idiot i guess because the worry of him limping was still in my head and i wanted to be sure he was ok and to me at the time this was the only way. so i went ahead and that is where my worry and constant anxiety began! i asked many other people whos kids had been xrayed did the radiographer ever say anything like this to you and they were baffled. and after she said about no scientific proof she covered his testicles with lead apron! i feel so angry toward this person - its like she began to tell me of risks and then backed out of it and persuaded me to proceed with it. the hospital told me afterward that the doctor should have explained the risks of xraying young children and they would have a word with head of a&e. so you see why my trust and confidence in the medical profession in non existant right now. i believe they did not act in the best interests of my child and were careless in prescribing an xray as opposed to a wait and see approach or god forbid bring me in on the decision making process. on the internet i came across forms from hospitals in england wales and n ireland where a consent form had to be signed before xrays being carried out.

emtrgnmb thank you for your post i was told over the phone that he got 50 microsieverts - a week that was for chest xray, hip and leg. 5 exposures in total - it seems so much for such a little one!

thank you all again

nesf

Danielle3 wrote: »

emtrgnmb thank you for your post i was told over the phone that he got 50 microsieverts - a week that was for chest xray, hip and leg. 5 exposures in total - it seems so much for such a little one!

thank you all again

Right unit wise:

50 microsieverts = 0.05 millisieverts (mSv)

Roughly 2mSv (or 2,000 microsieverts) is a year's background radiation (depends on where you are in the world). So your son was exposed to roughly one fortieth (1/40) what one would expect to be exposed to in a year. Or approximately 9 days worth of background radiation or thereabouts. What matters is how close this is to the point where radiation starts to damage the body! Now...

For reference, the lowest limit for radiation poisoning (and it is disputed whether this much radiation will actually harm a person!) is between 50 mSv and 200 mSv with the UK safety limit for people working with radiation being 20mSv or four hundred times what your son was exposed to! Radiation poisoning proper starts at 1000 mSv! or 20,000 times what your son was exposed to.

Edit: To put this in context. If your son was exposed to four hundred repeats of those tests this year he'd have gotten radiation up to the limit safely allowed for workers who are routinely exposed to radiation in terms of a yearly dose for the UK. The rate is even higher in some countries (50mSv or 2.5 times the UK limit) which would be equivalent to 1,000 repeats of all those X-rays over a year (or over 3 sets of tests every day for a full year).

Capt'n Midnight

It's a case of the lesser of two evils.

I know a girl with a bent arm because a break didn't heal properly. Would you have forgiven yourself if he had a permanent limp ?


As the technology improves X-rays now use less power than before so the risks are lower.


As for cancer risks, your body can repair some DNA changes but it's impossible to avoid all risks.

oxygen is carcinogenic but it's kinda hard to do without air http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6646012

PeakOutput

Danielle3 wrote: »

dont know what to do

only thing you can do is stop overreacting

edit; googling is not the best way to find out information on specialist subjects like this its never the balanced outlooks that come to the top of search engine results. your completely panicking yourself for no good reason

lonestargirl

Ok, the first thing when talking about radiation doses and side-effects is that they are divided into two, deterministic and stochastic effects.
Stochastic effects: can occur at any dose but their probability of incidence increases with dose. The severity of the effect is independent of dose.

Deterministic effects: have a threshold effect below which they do not occur. Above this both the probability of damage and the severity of that damage increase with dose.

When you hear talk of radiation 'poisoning' etc. these are deterministic effects and they occur at doses far higher than would routinely be seen in a medical setting. Stochastic effects are those relevant to general diagnostic x-rays and they are related to dose. In general, diagnostic x-rays are justifiable as the risk to the patient from the procedure is lower that the risk of not having the procedure.

To the OP, it seems to me that you feel that the risks and benefits of the x-ray were not adequately explained to you and the off-the-cuff comments by the radiographer were certainly innappropriate (if she felt the x-ray was un-necessary she has a duty to tell the radiologist). Unfortunately the risks from medical exposure to ionising radiation are not covered enough in medical school and some doctors are unaware of their legal responsibilites with regard to these exposures.

For those who are interested:

The rules and regulations covering radiation protection in radiology are outlined in SI 478. Briefly it includes the following:

• Physicist shall conduct performance tests after any major maintenance procedure and on a regular basis
• Equipment shall comply with criteria of acceptability
• Diagnostic reference levels
• Each individual exposure is justified
• Written instructions for nuclear medicine
• Enquire as to pregnancy and record answers in writing
• Practitioners (radiological procedures may only be authorised and performed under the responsibility of a practitioner)
  
• Prescribers (entitled to refer an individual for a radiological procedure)
  

The aim is to reduce the dose to the patient in a number of different ways, by ensuring that the procedure is medically necessary but also by maintanence and proper use of equipment keeping the exposure to the minimum level possible.

locum-motion

Firstly; I apologise for the fact that I am only seeing this post for the first time now. However, since it was only moved into this forum a few hours ago, I think that's excusable.

Secondly; what you are looking for, in my opinion, is reassurance that you did the right thing by your child in this case. In my opinion, that constitutes a request for medical advice. Please see this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055475288
NO MEDICAL ADVICE IS GIVEN ON THIS FORUM

Despite that fact that I believe that the advice you have been given thus far is good advice, this is nothing more than my own opinion based on the information supplied. Similarly, any advice so far given is the opinion of those who have given it. There are 2 major potential problems with this;
1. Those who gave the advice are giving it without access to your child's complete history and possibly without all the relevant information.
2. You have no way of knowing what are the qualifications and experience of the people giving that advice.

If you have any worries or queries about the care your child recieved, you must take them up with the healthcare professionals involved.
We cannot allow the Health Sciences forum on www.boards.ie to provide you with any further advice on this matter. To be honest, if this had been posted in HS to begin with, the thread would have been closed several posts ago.

Therefore, this thread is now closed.

I wish you and your child all the very best.