X-rays, Cancer, and a U.S. Medical and Dental Industry Cover-up Equal No Patients' Rights

By default, cancer is endorsed by U.S. medical and dental industries, where profits are more important than lives.

Figure 1. We are protected from most of the sun's gamma radiation by the atmosphere and the earth's magnetic poles, which deflect solar radiation around the earth. Astronauts say 'Ouch' when they see photos of solar flares.
(Image by US government)   Details   DMCA

U.S. Radiation Damage Studies

U.S. medical institutions claim that we do not understand cancer and X-rays sufficiently. However, such institutions warn us about the potential dangers of X-rays and cancer.

'The radiation you get from X-ray, CT [or CAT scan], and nuclear imaging is ionizing radiation high-energy wavelengths or particles that penetrate tissue to reveal the body's internal organs and structures. Ionizing radiation can damage DNA, and although your cells repair most of the damage, they sometimes do the job imperfectly, leaving small areas of 'misrepair.' The result is DNA mutations that may contribute to cancer years down the road.'

'We've long known that children and teens who receive high doses of radiation to treat lymphoma or other cancers are more likely to develop additional cancers later in life. But we have no clinical trials to guide our thinking about cancer risk from medical radiation in healthy adults. Most of what we know about the risks of ionizing radiation comes from long-term studies of people who survived the 1945 atomic bomb blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These studies show a slightly but significantly increased risk of cancer in those exposed to the blast.'

'The atomic blast isn't a perfect model for exposure to medical radiation, because the bomb released its radiation all at once, while the doses from medical imaging are smaller and spread over time. Still, most experts believe that can be almost as harmful as getting an equivalent dose all at once ("CANCER - Radiation risk from medical imaging", click here).'

In other words, U.S. experts acknowledge that low-dose X-rays cause cancer. Experts just do not know exactly how or when cancer will appear in our bodies. Cancer caused by radiation is complicated by many factors. We receive small doses from the earth around us. We receive radiation doses when we fly (Figure 1), since the atmosphere blocks radiation from the sun. And, of course we receive radiation from X-rays and CAT scans.

A Personal Denial of Medical Rights

The following information documents my experience with my dentist. Her name is not included here, since the problem of unneeded X-rays and a refusal of Patient's Rights is much greater than just my dentist. Even so, my dentist cancelled all dental services since I refused yearly X-rays, and my dentist cancelled all of my my wife's dental services since she was married to me. As a direct result, my wife and I no longer receive dental services anywhere.

'I went to the same dentist office for more than thirty years. [My current dentist who took over the dental practice of my long-time dentist] refuses service, since I refuse to submit to X-rays and risk cancer again. She refuses service to my wife, since we are married. We no longer have a dentist or any dental treatment.

[My dentist] and I discussed the email below at some length. She is steadfast that she will not perform any dental services unless yearly X-rays are performed.

Apparently, the risk of an undetected cavity or an imagined future abscess is far more important than a legitimate concern for a risk of further cancer.

She said that my letter 'was not nice'. I said that refusing service 'was not nice.' I stated that her decision was fundamentally wrong to deny services to a patient of many years.

She further stated that to perform dental cleanings and any other dental work would be unethical without X-rays. I countered that limited service is better than refused service.

I disagree with her decision. The American Dental Association Code of Ethics states that,

'The ethical dentist strives to do that which is right and good.' 'This principle expresses the concept that professionals have a duty to act for the benefit of others. Under this principle, the dentist's primary obligation is service to the patient and the public-at-large. The most important aspect of this obligation is the competent and timely delivery of dental care within the bounds of clinical circumstances presented by the patient, with due consideration being given to the needs, desires and values of the patient.

[My dentist's] sum-zero service does not meet the requirement of "timely delivery of dental care".

[My dentist's] recommendation that I should find another dentist does not constitute dental care. My provided choice is to risk cancer or get another dentist.'

My dentist refuses to 'serve the patient or the public at large'.

My dentist does not consider the 'needs and values of the patient'.

My dentist does not 'do that which is right and good'.

The American Dental Association does not enforce this Code of Conduct. Dentist's comply at will. Since many doctors and dentists provide unnecessary X-rays that grow unnecessary cancers in patients, those dentists or doctors choose to ignore the that which is right and good.

Medical Code of Ethics Neglect

Doctors may comply - if they choose - with the American Medical Association Code of Ethics (click here).

Figure 2. Types of skin cancer, where my 1/2-inch -wide cancer was non-mlaignant but looked like the malignant melanoma.
(Image by Government Agency)   Details   DMCA

To [My Dentist];

'To summarize our conversation at [a] dental appointment, you will not provide any dental services unless I submit to yearly X-rays, and I will not submit to yearly X-rays. You are concerned about professional liabilities if X-rays are not performed, and I am concerned that I will get skin cancer again (Figure 2). During my [Master of Engineering in Nuclear Engineering studies over the past [eight] years, I was taught that X-rays from doctors and dentists are performed far more often than necessary, and that frequent X-rays cause cancer. I learned these facts at a 2019, International Radiation Protection School [at the University of Delft] in Sweden, which is taught through the Nuclear Energy Agency of Paris, France.

I transferred to your dental care from [my previous dentist], I was a dental patient of [my previous dentist] since the 1990s, and he provided upwards of ~fifty [to hundreds] of X-rays during annual X-rays and a series of complicated dental surgeries.

Skin cancer was removed from my upper back near my shoulder. In my opinion, there is no doubt that dental X-rays caused this particular cancer. Since cancer damages are cumulative in nature, additional X-rays have a high probability of cancer in my specific case. Accordingly, I refuse to risk additional cancer.

Although I prefer to continue dental cleaning and dental services, this cancer risk is unacceptable. Yearly X-rays are not a reasonable risk. As you stated, you will not perform dental services unless I submit to yearly X-rays, even though I signed a statement in your office that I refused X-rays.'

Since my signature on this X-ray refusal document absolved my dentist from legal responsibility, an important issue arises. That is, to what extent does my dentist base her decisions on profits, where profits are certainly increased every time an unneeded X-ray is performed.

Suspiciously, my dentist provides herself with a five-star rating on her website, even though my rating on her website, and other websites, was the lowest possible one star rating.

A Denial of Patient Rights

[My dentist] said that she was surprised that I wrote this letter, since other patients did not complain when [our dentist] terminated all of their dental services because they refused to have fillings performed. We cannot stop her refusals to serve our community health, but I can certainly raise this question with respect to the unethical treatment of patients.

My dentist told me that dental X-rays are acceptable to my health. Based on published facts, I vehemently disagree. My dentist also claimed that radiation was as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Based on published facts, I vehemently disagree. Such false statements by medical and dental professionals constitute part of a much larger cover-up of cancer dangers to patients.

Patients have no choice, i.e., patients are denied patient rights, and patents have no recourse to keep their rights, or defend themselves against medical professionals who value profits before medical and dental health.

Addendum

My dentist, or my ex-dentist more accurately, was provided a copy of this Op Ed with a request for comments. No comments were received.