- It is true that noone truly knows how one is going to react with the injection of contrast media. However, the same can be said for ANY other medicine you take if you have not taken it before. An astonishing number of people have penicillin allergies but it remains one of the best tools available in the fight against infection. However, processes are in place which effectivley prevent patients receiving penicillin based anti-biotics who may be sensitive. You can go into Sainsburies and buy any one of the cold and flu remedies on the shelf and potentially, have an allergic reaction. The point is, it is extremely rare. 1 in 1000 people will have a mild (not allergic) reaction (nausea) to gadolinium contrast agents, compared to 1 in 100 with iodinated contrast agents (those used in CT and X-Ray). Bizarrely, iodinated contrast agents do not command nearly as much interest. The rule here is that if contrast media is required (which, far from being something to make radiographers/radiologists lives easier but rather something which will make the difference between a right or wrong diagnosis), the risks are managed by careful and strict adherence to practices which have been decided after careful and accurate research.

- Yes, Gd based contrast media is VERY expensive, largely because of the time and money spent on designing molecules which are safe to inject. However, it is not money wasted if that contrast is the ONLY way a definitive diagnosis can be made. In my line of work, the type of patients who receive contrast are often those who require it to define and classify a type or grade of tumour which would be IMPOSSIBLE by any other non-invasive means. The only other option is invasive, life threatening deep tissue biopsy which has significantly higher risks associated with it. Another patient group are those with Multiple sclerosis where Gd-DTPA is the only contrast media sensitive enough to demonstrate active inflammation (active disease). Without this, there would be NO way of directly assessing and quantifying the success of treatment regimens and the science behind multiple sclerosis would be light years behind. The point I am trying to make is that without contrast media of this kind, we would be vastly behind in the diagnosis and treatment of many diseases, inlcuding cancer, MS, vascular diseases etc. This is why I regard your comments about medical staff injecting these drugs as they just want to make their life easier, so incredibly mis-informed.

- Radiographers will always talk to you about the contrast injection before even starting cannulation, as it is assault if they do not. However, I can assure you that no radiographer will state that it may cause 'a little bit of sneezing afterwards'. Sneezing is not a common side effect of any contrast injection and in fact, NO common side effects have been recognised in MRI agents. As such, no radiographer would state sneezing as a potential side effect. If it were, then it would surely be a pointless exercise anyway when the patient is required to be very still for perhaps 30 minutes after the injection whilst the images are acquired!

All in all, your are right that the health of the patient is of paramount importance. However, without the use gadolinium based contrast agents, it is an inescapable fact that modern medicine would not be where it is today and more patients would die from delayed and innaccurate medical diagnosis of some of the most serious diseases known to man. This is NOT an over statement. Of course, nothing is without risk. If it were, then I am sure we would all be having 6 monthly scans as a routine MOT (something which certain companies try to offer and something which the medical community are dead against). However, MRI is not becoming 'more popular' as you describe, as if patients had a choice whether to be in a situation where they need medical attention?! On the contrary, MRI is simply emerging as the gold standard imaging investigation for soft tissue disease, showing both anatomical and physiological information which is simply unrivalled by any other imaging test. The use of contrast media is an inescapable part of this and without it, those who require accurate diagnosis would not be in the relatively fortunate position they are in now, when compared to 20 years ago. I for one would have an MRI with contrast any day fo the week if it meant I was going to receive a fast and accurate diagnosis. Risks are accepted to be part of medicine as we are essentially working against nature to keep us healthier and living longer. Ultimately, medical profesisonals can only provide patients with enough information to make informed consent. However, patient CHOICE will always be the deciding factor.