From: Tony Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dear Kim,
You are a medical imaging practitioner, that's what radiographers do, they practice
medical imaging of all sorts.
If I ran into someone I hadn't seen for a while and I said to them what do you and
they
said to me 'I'm a medical imaging practitioner' I'd think that they had tickets on
themselves. Why do you want some really fancy-nancy name to call yourself? Surely
if you're really good at what you do it doesn't matter what you're called, people will
still
admire you, aspire to be like you and join the same profession.
We don't need a new name, we just need to work a bit harder on our public (and
private) image - and that does hard work!
Tony
Tony Smith
Senior Lecturer in
Medical Radiation Science
University Department of Rural Health - Nrthn NSW
Ph: (02) 6761 9510 {Int:+61+2+6761 9510}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/26/03 12:51 PM >>>
From: Scott & Kim Duffy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Airnews Readers
A clear message from the symposium on Professional Issues held in Adelaide
on the weekend is that we need to promote within the health care sector and
the public sector that we are professionals. I prefer the 'label' of
Medical Imaging Technologist compared to Radiographer however could we go
one step further and be known as Medical Imaging Practitioner. Technologist
in the public arena can evoke images of people in laboratories carrying out
experiments. General Practitioners on the other hand are more readily
considered by the public to be professionals. The term Medical Imaging
encompasses all our modalities and Practitioner is defined in The Macquarie
Dictionary as "someone engaged in the practice of a profession...".
Perfect.
Go the Medical Imaging Practitioner.
Kim
This message was sent by
The Duffys
AKA
Scott, Kim, Mitchell and Mackenzie Duffy
60 Verbena Drive
MT SHERIDAN QLD 4868
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PH (07) 4036 1885
PH (07) 4051 5322 (Work - Scott)
From: Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: AIRNEWS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:21:32 +1000
To: AIRNEWS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [AIRNEWS] definition
From: Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rob
I agree about the technical aspects of radiation as I said EMR
(electro-magnetic radiation) and sound waves 'radiate' but a
radiographer
does not really descibe a sonographer as many sonographers have little
to
do with ionising radiation and radiographer implies ionising radiation..
Granted that technician/technologist does not entirely reflect us as
professionals but then neither does radiographer.
It has been said before, that if all MRS's, MIT's, MRT's, sono's can
agree
on one solution then nothing could stop us. We just have to agree on
something. The Victorian example is close but it still calls us
technologists.
Nuc Med I presume would come under a similar banner to
radiographers as
they both use ionising radiation to diagnose disease. Unless they want
to
be different. They are an unusual lot. (yes I have lots of good Nuc
med
friends)
Any ideas to replace technologist ?
Dieter
At 15:46 25/03/2003 +1100, you wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Deiter
>
>Both MRI and sonography use radiation, but not ionising radiation.
>Radiation is any form of energy that once emitted from the source that
>will radiate (spread out from a central point). Both sound and radio
>waves are forms of radiation.
>
>I agree that we need some title to incorporate MR and U/S, what about
>trying to include Nuc Med?
>
>We need a name that reflects us as professional - not technologist /
>technicians as this implies that we are not autonomous and if not
>autonomous then definitely not professional
>
>Rob
>
>_________________________________________________
>Rob Davidson
>Lecturer & Course Coordinator: Ba App Sc (Medical Imaging)
>School of Clinical Sciences
>Charles Sturt University
>Locked Bag 588
>Wagga Wagga NSW 2678 Australia
>Phone: 02 6933 2503
>Fax: 02 6933 2866
>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Web: www.csu.edu.au/faculty/health/clinical
>=20
>Avoid people who say they know the answer.
>Keep company of people who are trying to=20
>understand the question.
>Billy Connolly's Desiderata from Billy by Pamela Stephenson
>=20
>=20
>=20
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dieter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, 24 March 2003 8:44 PM
>To: AIRNEWS
>Subject: RE: [AIRNEWS] definition
>
> From: Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I think we need to move away from the "Radiographer" label. This
doen
>not=20
>fully encompass both MRI technicians and Sonographers as both of
these=20
>modalities do not use radiation. You could start and be technical
with=20
>EMR. Perhaps we should leave it that these two do not use
"ionising=20
>radiation" nor do they "irradiate" people. We are all medical
imaging=20
>technologists or mecical radiation technologists (RT's).
>
>If we are going to stand on our feet then we need to get straight what
>we=20
>are going to call ourselves.
>
>Dieter
>
>At 16:24 19/03/2003 +1000, you wrote:
> > From: Ken_Spong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Maybe Radiographer Initiated Opinions might be a plank to start
> >building
> >with???
> >
> >Ken
> >
> >
> >At 06:56 PM 19/09/2002 +1000, you wrote:
> >
> > >The Australian Bureau of Statistics - Australian Standard
> >Classification
> > >of Occupations (p. 173) defines a Medical Diagnostic Radiographer as
> > >someone who:
> > >
> > >
> > > "Operates X-ray and other medical imaging equipment to
>produce
> > > images for the medical diagnostic purpose in conjunction with
> > > radiologists and other medical specialists"
> > >
> > >So it seems that even in this day and age, radiographers are
> >continued to
> > >be defined as personnel allied to radiology/radiologists. Do we not
> > >deserve an independent status??
> > >
> > >
> > >Sarah Lewis
> > >Lecturer: Diagnostic Radiography
> > >The University of Sydney
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Wright, Lee [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:19 PM
> > >To: 'AIRNEWS'
> > >Subject: RE: [AIRNEWS] definition
> > >
> > > From: "Wright, Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > >..define what Radiography is/was...
> > >Responsible Medical Imaging to aid/assist in the confirmation/denial
> >of a
> > >medical prognosis/diagnosis...
> > >with due regard to the minimisation of irradiation and/or
>interventional
> > >procedure...
> > >
> > >
> > >Lee Wright
> > >Carnarvon, WA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Ong, Teresa
> > >Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2002 2:57 PM
> > >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > >Subject: [AIRNEWS] definition
> > >
> > >
> > > From: "Ong, Teresa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > >I have a question for all airnews readers and lurkers,
> > >
> > >If I had to define what Radiography, is or was, what would that be,
> >also RT
> > >and also sonography.
> > >
> > >Can anyone give me an all encompassing definition or 3 individual
> >ones
> > >
> > >Thanks.
> > >
> > >Teresa
> > >
> > >Teresa Ong
> > >
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
This message is being broadcast by AIRNEWS,
the Australian Institute of Radiography list Server
Send messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For assistance send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Commands should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinions expressed on this list are not necessarily those of the
moderator, his assistants or those of the A.I.R.
