An unnecessary
scan is nota favour.

Because an examination using ionising radiation has to be justified, and a request is not itself a justification. The expected benefit for you must outweigh the harm the exposure causes, and an alternative achieving the same thing without radiation has to be considered. Carrying out an unjustified examination is an exposure with nothing on the other side of the scale, and it can also produce a finding that leads to further investigation without ever helping you.

No, and that surprises people. Dose limits apply to workers and to the public, but not to a patient undergoing a medical exposure, because a ceiling would sometimes block an examination that was genuinely necessary. Protection is delivered instead through justification, deciding whether the exposure should happen, and optimisation, keeping the dose as low as reasonably achievable for the diagnostic purpose.

No. Ultrasound uses no ionising radiation at all, so the justification and optimisation framework described here does not apply to it in the same way. The two get confused constantly, which is why they are separated plainly. If a question can be answered with ultrasound rather than with an examination using radiation, that is exactly the sort of alternative the justification principle requires to be considered.

Tell the practice before any examination involving ionising radiation, and tell us even if you are unsure. The information changes the assessment, sometimes changes the technique and sometimes means the examination is deferred or replaced. It is not an awkward question and nobody minds being told after the fact that the answer turned out to be no.

You will be given them and they will be explained. A result read in isolation misleads more often than it informs, because the meaning of a finding depends on the clinical picture it sits in. You also have a right to a carefully kept record, a right of access to it and a right to obtain a copy, along with the right to information, to free and informed consent and to bring a complaint to the competent mediation service.

Because the rules governing what a doctor may say publicly exclude comparisons with other practitioners, claims of superiority, patient testimonials, success rates and any promise about an outcome. A page containing those would be both prohibited and untrue in the way an advertisement needs them to be. What belongs here is practical information, which is why radiation protection and your rights take up the space instead.