From: Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Let me get something straight, I didn't start this discussion. I know what
I am and what I do. What people call me is up to them so long as they
know
I am a professional in what I do.
I know this thing has been talked to death. The one point that rears its
head is, are we going to move on and really strive to change our status
in
the medical community ?
We talk and talk but what are we really achieving ? If we are going to
get
any where we have to agree, this is one of the hardest things to achieve
in
the miedical imaging fraternity.
Enough said.
Dieter
At 14:01 26/03/2003 +1100, you wrote:
> From: Tony Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Dear Dieter,
>
>You may not be aware but this topic has been vigorously discussed (to
>death) over
>many years.
>
>At an AGM a about 3 years ago the AIR voted to stick with the terms
>radiographer and
>radiation therapist, even though we are called something different
under
>various
>awards. I thin that the AIR waqs right and personally I can't see
anything
>wrong with
>those titles. I'm happy to be called a radiographer, as I believe are the
>majority of
>radiographers. The only objection I have is when people get
radiographers
>and
>radiologists mixed up (although I would mind if the pay office did that).
>
>I think that ultimately 'you are what you are' no matter what you're
>called. Stop worrying
>about nomenclature and get on doing what you do really, really well.
Be
>proud to be a
>radiographer.
>
>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 09:40 AM >>>
> 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.
