It's Official

Craig,

Thanks for the very interesting post and insightful comments. Assuming your interpretations of the language in the bill are correct (and I have no reason to think they are not but Im not a lawyer either) you make some alid points which are very relevant to be considered. This could indicate a need to have some type of disclaimer included in lectures, etc re: the comments not being inteded as "diagnoses". You are correct - as non-MD sonographers / vascular technologists we do not make diagnoses but we describe our FINDINGS from the examination of patients or the review of images (i.e. in lectures).

I think your concerns should be shared with more than just those individuals who read this blog. (as hard as it is to believe - Im told there are a few people out there who dont!  ;-)

I hope you dont mind that I share this info w/ the SDMS as they have been at the forefrontof the licensure issues both in NM as well as Oregon.

I would also encourage you to share your concerns wit the readers of ADVANCE for Imaging & Radiation Oncology magazine via a letter to the editor or perhaps a more formal article. There are links on their web site which will make this easy.

Thanks again for sharing this -

Regards,

Dan M

Dear Dan:

Re: New Mexico's new bill for Ultrasound Licensure.

I am and have been a long time advocate for licensure for Ultrasound Technologist's.  That said, the complexities of our various fields need to be "Very Specifically" and exceedingly well defined / addressed to meet every need and possible protection to the members of our profession.  This Bill and the model it represents, presents a potentially serious issue.

    I have as friends, people who posses the title of Esquire, a Juris Doctorate, Law Degree in the State of California.  I have run this bill by them and we have discussed it at length.  On the whole it has great merits.   Specifically  it has flaws, that in our state, could potentially land an innocent technologist in jail!

    Section 61-14E-11 "Supension; Revocation; Application of Uniform Licensing Acts"   Section I; line 3;  " Individual Has interpreted a Diagnostic Imaging exam for a patient, a patient's family or ["the Public"]  shall be held accountable to Page 14; lines 5-11;  "Proof of a single act, a single holding out or a single attempt, shall constitute a violation, and; upon conviction; such person shall be imprisoned in County Jail and or fined $1000.00 US dollars."  Definition of [Public] State of California;   Belonging to the People at large. Relating to the People of the State, Nation, or the Community, not limited to, or restricted to Any Particular Class of the Community.  

     By virtue of this definition; If one as a "licensed ultrasound Technologist" but without a Medical Doctorate Degree under the predefined rules;  lectures the "public" or lectures to a group of assimilated professionals in "public", with possibility of public as defined present; describes or defines a medical diagnosis of of any ultrasound exam images,  will therefore be in participation and conflict with said state mandated statute.  Essential legal meaning;  individuals such as yourself and myself may be at risk for providing critical analysis of case studies and  the dissemination of medical information at lectures or conferences, once freely and invitingly attended by ourselves and our peers.

   We all know as ultrasound  professional's, our role is not to diagnose, but to Document!   However, when speaking of pathophysiology, it is virtually impossible to speak, without the use of diagnostic, anatomical and pathological terminology.  While you and others may see this as an innocuous argument.  Think carefully about this.....we live in an extremely litigious society.  If they will sue to get the word "God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance ..... What do you think  the legal beagles will do with this?  

Sincerely, with a reserved cognizance.

Craig Kalapus, RDCS