2.3 ARRT Standards of Ethics & Scope of Practice

The ARRT Standards of Ethics

The ARRT Standards of Ethics is the governing ethics document for everyone ARRT certifies, including candidates. The current version was last revised September 1, 2025. It has two substantive parts plus an enforcement framework:

• Code of Ethics -- aspirational
• Rules of Ethics -- mandatory and enforceable
• Administrative Procedures -- how violations are investigated and sanctioned

Do not confuse the ARRT Standards of Ethics with the ASRT (American Society of Radiologic Technologists) Code of Ethics. ASRT is the professional society that helps write the aspirational code and the practice standards; ARRT is the certifying body that enforces the Rules of Ethics and can revoke a credential.

Code of Ethics -- Aspirational

The Code of Ethics is the first part and contains 11 principles describing the professional conduct to which a Registered Technologist aspires. They are goals, not disciplinary rules. Key principles the exam favors:

• Principle 3 -- deliver care without discrimination on legally protected bases.
• Principle 6 -- the technologist aids the physician but recognizes that interpretation and diagnosis are outside the scope of practice.
• Principle 7 -- minimize radiation exposure to patient, self, and team.
• Principle 9 -- respect confidences and the patient's right to privacy, revealing information only as required by law or to protect welfare.
• Principle 11 -- refrain from illegal drugs or controlled substances that impair professional judgment.

Rules of Ethics -- Enforceable

The Rules of Ethics form the second part and are the mandatory standards of minimally acceptable professional conduct. The September 2025 version lists 22 numbered rules. Violating one exposes a technologist or candidate to sanctions. The rules cluster into recognizable categories.

A rule tested often: Registered Technologists and candidates must notify ARRT of any ethics violation -- including state licensing actions and criminal charges or convictions -- within 30 days of the occurrence. Honesty on the application and prompt self-reporting both matter.

Administrative Procedures & Ethics Review

The Administrative Procedures describe due process: a complaint or self-report goes to the Ethics Committee, which reviews and may recommend sanctions ranging from a reprimand to suspension or revocation of the credential, with the individual given notice and a chance to respond. Applicants with a prior conviction or ethics issue may file an Ethics Review Preapplication before finishing school, so ARRT can decide eligibility in advance rather than after they invest in the exam.

Scope of Practice

Scope of practice defines what a radiographer is legally and professionally permitted to do. It is set by state licensure statutes and the ASRT Practice Standards, and reinforced by the ARRT Code. The exam expects you to sort tasks into 'in scope' and 'out of scope.'

In scope for the radiographer:

• Positioning and performing radiographic examinations
• Applying radiation protection and selecting technical factors
• Patient assessment, education, and basic monitoring
• Venipuncture and contrast administration where state law and facility policy allow, under appropriate supervision

Out of scope for the radiographer:

• Interpreting images or giving a diagnosis (a physician's role, Code principle 6)
• Prescribing medication or ordering examinations
• Performing procedures without required training or authorization

When a patient asks 'What does my x-ray show?', the correct response is to refer the question to the radiologist or referring physician. Offering even a reassuring read is both a scope violation and a possible Rules-of-Ethics matter.

Ethics Eligibility for the Exam

ARRT lists three eligibility pillars: education, examination, and ethics. To be certified you must meet the Ethics Requirements, which ask about honesty on the application and about past conduct such as convictions, honor-code violations, and disciplinary actions. Failing to disclose is itself a Rules-of-Ethics violation. This is why the eligibility summary pairs 'Meet ARRT Ethics Requirements' with passing the scaled score of 75.

A Worked Distinction: Code vs Rules

Suppose a technologist reconstructs exam questions from memory and posts them online, then fails to report a resulting misdemeanor charge. Both acts are Rules of Ethics violations -- examination subversion and failure to self-report within 30 days -- and either can cost the credential. Now suppose a technologist simply falls short of the ideal of pursuing continuing education or sharing knowledge with colleagues. That is a Code of Ethics matter: aspirational, not disciplinary. On the exam, decide first whether the conduct is prohibited (a Rule) or merely short of an ideal (the Code); sanctions attach only to the Rules of Ethics. Both misdemeanors and felonies are reportable, and honesty on the application is itself a Rule.

Exam Strategy for Standards Questions

• If a scenario involves interpretation, diagnosis, or telling a patient results -- it is out of scope; refer to the physician.
• If it involves cheating, sharing exam content, or lying on the application -- it is a Rules of Ethics violation, potentially costing the credential.
• If it involves aspirational language ('strives to,' 'respects the dignity of') -- it maps to the Code of Ethics, which is aspirational, not disciplinary.
• Remember the 30-day self-reporting window for criminal charges and licensing actions.