ObjectivesTo assess radiation exposure due to CT in the Netherlands.MethodsTwenty-one hospitals participated in a dose survey for the 21 most frequently used CT protocols. Hospitals completed a Web survey with detailed parameters for one patient per protocol, including the dose length product (DLP) from the scanner dose report. Only standard-sized patients (1.74 m and 77 kg and BMI 25.4 kg/m2 ± 15 %) for each protocol and available scanner were considered. Effective dose (E) per protocol was estimated using ICRP-103-based E/DLP coefficients. Dose levels were compared to surveys from other countries and to diagnostic reference levels.ResultsData of 186 patients (247 scan phases) from 14 hospitals and 19 scanners were used for final analysis of DLP and E. Effective doses varied from 0.2 mSv in sinus CT to 19.4 mSv for multiphase liver. The most frequent exams were brain (1.5 mSv), abdomen (8.0 mSv), and thorax-abdomen (11.5 mSv). These results are lower than in Germany and comparable to those in the UK, and are within reference levels. Results between hospitals varied, with per protocol minimum/maximum E ratios ranging from 1.1–5.4.ConclusionsCompared to surrounding countries, CT in the Netherlands is associated with relatively low radiation doses in standard patients. Important differences remain between hospitals.Main Messages• A national dose survey providing updated, detailed data for patient dose in the most frequently used CT protocols.• CT in the Netherlands is associated with relatively low individual radiation doses in standard patients compared to surrounding European countries.• Considerable differences remain between hospitals for the most frequently used CT protocols, indicating the need for further optimisation.

No abstract

1 See Du Preez 2009 TSAR 60-61 for a list of some of the controversial provisions in the Consumer Protection Bill of 2008hereafter the CPA Bill. 2 68 of 2008. 3 See Schedule 2; see Stassen 2009 De Rebus 42-44 for a concise overview of the commencement dates of application of the sections of the Act and also see generally Van Eeden Guide. 4 Parts A-I paras 8-67. 5 See 3 in the article.

South Africa was in need of a comprehensive framework of legislation, policies and government authorities to regulate consumer-supplier interaction. The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, which was signed by the President of the Republic of South Africa on 29 April 2009 and published in the Government Gazette on 29 April 2009, now provides an extensive framework for consumer protection and aims to develop, enhance and protect the rights of consumers and to eliminate unethical suppliers and improper business practices. Certain areas of the common law regarding consumer rights have been codified by the Act and certain unfair business practices that were previously unregulated are now governed by the Act. The Act has a wide field of application. It applies to every transaction occurring within South Africa for the supply of goods or services or the promotion of goods or services and the goods or services themselves, unless the transaction is exempted from the application of the Act. The Act also specifically regulates aspects of franchise agreements. In terms of the Act, consumers obtain several new rights and some existing rights are broadened and reinforced. These rights are: the right to equality in the consumer market; privacy; choice; disclosure and information; fair and responsible marketing; fair and honest dealing; fair, just and reasonable terms and conditions; and fair value, good quality and safety. The last right in terms of the Act deals with a supplier's accountability to consumers. The authors critically analyse and discuss these rights. It is clear that the Act is written in favour of the consumer. Various provisions of the Act make inroads into the common-law position to strengthen the position of the consumer vis-à-vis the supplier and suppliers are undoubtedly facing an onerous task to prepare to comply, and eventually attempt to comply, with the Act. Although the Act has its own interpretation clause, which provides that it must be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the purposes of the Act, the Act poses many uncertainties and interpretational and practical challenges. Many questions are therefore raised, some of which remain unanswered. These questions illustrate some of the uncertainties concerning the scope and possible interpretation of the fundamental consumer rights.

In terms of the National Credit Act a credit provider may conclude a credit agreement with a consumer only after he has made a proper financial assessment and concludes that the consumer will be able to satisfy all of his obligations under all his credit agreements. However, a practice of not conducting this affordability assessment has evolved amongst certain credit providers where the credit agreement involved is a suretyship agreement. This article investigates whether or not a suretyship agreement is indeed a credit agreement in terms of the National Credit Act, and if a financial assessment should be conducted in the case of a suretyship agreement. The main aim of the article is to try to identify what the concept of a “credit guarantee”, as defined in the Act, encompasses and ultimately if the common-law contract of suretyship falls under this definition. Our conclusion is that “credit guarantee” is as vague and problematic as many of the other definitions in the Act. If one reads the Act in its entirety (including the regulations to the Act), it seems unlikely that the legislature intended not to regulate common-law suretyships also.