To the Editor.
—In his article,1 Eddy talks an imaginary radiologist through his resistance to guidelines limiting the use of an intravenous contrast agent, mandating a less safe alternative where the absence of risky factors make the latter's life-threatening side effect less likely. I offer the following imaginary conversation in reply. The speakers are a bike salesman (BS) and a composite father (DAD) buying a first bicycle helmet for his young son. All characters, incidents, and technologies are purely fictitious, and any resemblance to real people or events, and so on and so forth:
DAD: These helmets seem less substantial than I recall them in my day.
BS: Yes, sir, the new plastics are less dense than the old ones, but they actually save more lives!
DAD: Really! Technology is a marvelous thing. So, these exceed the old standards for impact resistance, or whatever they call it?
BS: No,
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
