> Let’s be realistic here - if you are requiring a tracheostomy and ventilator, or ECMO the you are severely unwell.
Obviously. So why use these invasive procedures if a less invasive one could do the job with less risk?
> A blood transfusion, or small risk of infection is the least of your worries at that point.
Did you come straight from the 19th century or something? Hospital acquired infections kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. That's hardly a small worry.
> As with everything in medicine there is a risk:benefit ratio.
No shit. That's why there's interest in alternative procedures with less risk for the same benefit.
> If you need ECMO you literally cannot oxygenate your own blood even with a ventilator.
Unless… there's a new method that bypasses the lungs. Did you read the linked article?
Clearly if anal oxygen proves to be safer and as effective then it will be adopted. No one is disputing that.
My comment was regarding your expletive laden derision of devices which save hundreds of thousands of lives.
And you seem to have missed the point. I did. It say hospital acquired infections are not prevalent or problematic. My point was that every decision in medicine s based on risk and benefit. If you need ECMO you will almost certainly die without it. If you have ECMO there is a compratively small risk of infection that may kill you.
And yes thanks, I did read the article. I’m also a doctor and have spent many months working in ITU, anaesthesia, and operating theatres, and managing acutely unwell COVID-19 patients.
Let us all be glad you’re not making any treatment decisions.
> Clearly if anal oxygen proves to be safer and as effective then it will be adopted. No one is disputing that.
Could've fooled me with how dismissive you were.
> My point was that every decision in medicine s based on risk and benefit.
Then there should be no problem with highlighting the risks so people realise that alternatives are worth it not just as somehow inferior "second standard" as implied by the person I was replying to, but as equal or better solution.
To clarify for you (again), my comment was regarding your unfounded derision of existing, proven, lifesaving technologies—I was not dismissing of the technique proposed in the article.
I don't think _"F### ventilators. They damage the patient's lungs, and laying tubes into the trachea requires traumatic surgery and carries significant secondary infection risk"_ is really offering an informed or balanced discussion of the risks and benefits of intubation and ventilation hence my initial reply.
On the contrary, this offers an emotive, highly negative, and uninformed opinion with no balance. We are in a time of a global pandemic with the general public now aware of intubation, ventilation, ECMO, CPAP, BiPAP, and other respiratory interventions. Many people and/or their families are having to face or consider these interventions. Your comment is potentially harmful.
Against to be clear, the medical profession is (spoiler alert) acutely aware of the risks and negatives of ventilation, including extended ventilation, ECMO, surgical and percutaneous traches, and every other intervention that is offered. These risks are discussed with patients and families who often lack the domain expertise, it therefore being part of the role of the doctor to explain to the best of their knowledge what options the patient has before them and likely outcomes of the different options. Ultimately (ideally) the patient makes a decision for themselves based on this information.
You can be sure that the nuanced and balanced discussion is a little more informative than "F### ventilators".
If someone gets their health advice off Hackernews comments I'd say they need a psychiatrist first.
Yes, they're the least bad treatment options we have right now, I can still be hyped about potential improvements.
> You can be sure that the nuanced and balanced discussion is a little more informative than "F### ventilators".
I'd rather hope so. I've had to ask "so what health risks were you supposed to inform me about according to the form you want me to sign?" way too many times.
Obviously. So why use these invasive procedures if a less invasive one could do the job with less risk?
> A blood transfusion, or small risk of infection is the least of your worries at that point.
Did you come straight from the 19th century or something? Hospital acquired infections kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. That's hardly a small worry.
> As with everything in medicine there is a risk:benefit ratio.
No shit. That's why there's interest in alternative procedures with less risk for the same benefit.
> If you need ECMO you literally cannot oxygenate your own blood even with a ventilator.
Unless… there's a new method that bypasses the lungs. Did you read the linked article?