Counterpoint: Image Gently: Should It End or Endure?

INTRODUCTION Image Gently should be terminated. I agree. This statement is not much of a counterpoint to Dr Cohen’s [1] perspective. But, as withmany things, the essence really lies in the journey. And our paths and perceptions along the way are quite different. Before discussing this journey, there are a few points to make. First, I will not respond to the individual items in Dr Cohen’s commentary. I don’t believe this is fair, as he has not had an opportunity to represent his position knowing what I will clarify. But I also don’t believe it is necessary for me to respond specifically, as I submit that a factual review of the Image Gently Alliance mission, efforts, and impact stands on its own merits. I also am not going to address “as low as reasonably achievable” or whether the cancer risk of low-level ionizing radiation such as that requisite in much of diagnostic imaging exists or not. These are topics that are debated, continue to evolve, and are much broader and deeper than the subject of the value of Image Gently. My perspective in this commentary is founded on the conviction that we have through assurance a professional responsibility to provide informed and appropriate service to our patients, their caregivers (including our health care colleagues), and the public [2].