- Feb 11, 2019
- 801
- Tinnitus Since
- 01/2014
- Cause of Tinnitus
- Headcold/Flu
To All Those Who Were Irritated or Worsened by an MRI:
I have never encountered a single reported instance where the results from an MRI led to a successful treatment for tinnitus.
Because, after all, there is at present no method for the repair of any cilia, aural nerve or other tissue damage.
Even if such damages were identified there would be no treatment recourse.
Why would a physician subject a patient to such a punishing level of sound when the condition is often caused by exposure to such a punishing level of sound?
This is only conjecture, but I wonder if the real purpose of such frequent prescriptions of MRI's has to do with the physician's liability / malpractice exposure.
The physician says to him/herself, "Let's say there is only a 1% chance that this patient has a brain tumor. Issuing a prescription for an MRI allows me to sleep at night knowing that my malpractice exposure is protected.
If the patient undergoes it, and we find nothing abnormal, then so be it. If the patient regards such a test as burdensome, unnecessary and costly, then I am still protected since the patient went against Doctor's orders."
Some time ago the Atlantic Monthly Magazine had a report on how various high-cost Medical Equipment Manufacturers kept tabs on which physicians most frequently wrote prescriptions for their equipment usage (and very generously rewarded those who did).
I have never encountered a single reported instance where the results from an MRI led to a successful treatment for tinnitus.
Because, after all, there is at present no method for the repair of any cilia, aural nerve or other tissue damage.
Even if such damages were identified there would be no treatment recourse.
Why would a physician subject a patient to such a punishing level of sound when the condition is often caused by exposure to such a punishing level of sound?
This is only conjecture, but I wonder if the real purpose of such frequent prescriptions of MRI's has to do with the physician's liability / malpractice exposure.
The physician says to him/herself, "Let's say there is only a 1% chance that this patient has a brain tumor. Issuing a prescription for an MRI allows me to sleep at night knowing that my malpractice exposure is protected.
If the patient undergoes it, and we find nothing abnormal, then so be it. If the patient regards such a test as burdensome, unnecessary and costly, then I am still protected since the patient went against Doctor's orders."
Some time ago the Atlantic Monthly Magazine had a report on how various high-cost Medical Equipment Manufacturers kept tabs on which physicians most frequently wrote prescriptions for their equipment usage (and very generously rewarded those who did).