Surgery Nightmare -- Yikes!

[Hellbound]

It has improved in some ways -- in part due to critics like Dr. Mendelsohn. But the basic bias in favor of medical intervention is still there; the love affair with new, unproven, dangerous drugs, and diagnostic procedures, still there;

You mean that brought about by the increased difficulty of passing FDA standards today as compared to 1970? Or the greatly improved testing techniques? Or the focus on evidence-based medicine?

...the close-mindedness concerning preventive medicine via life style and nutrition, still there;...

Ah, you mean like the fact that every doctor's office I've ever been to hands out wellness pamphlets emphasizing the importance of exercise and healthy eating? Or how the doctor's first reccomendation to my high cholesterol was lifestyle chages? Or how there's a large focus on heart-healthy diets and regular exercise? All the programs and techiques developed to quit bad habits such as drugs, drinking, and smoking?

the "we-know-best" arrogance regarding forced, mass innoculations, still there,...

Yes, I mean, God forbid we wipe out any more diseases like smallpox, or reduce any more child death rates. We need a good bubonic plaque, or pneumonic plague every so often. It's good for us. And a little Tetanus never hurt anybody, and pertusis is nothing to worry about.

...the industrial trend of mass-produced patients-in-waiting -- waiting for endless tests, most fairly useless, many very dangerous, still there;

You mean like the fact that there are more healthcare professionals working today than at any other time? Or the fact that doctors routinely see more patients in less time than at any time previously? The fact that hospitals are equipped to handle more patients at once? That tests and procedures are done more qui8ckly and efficiently than they were 30 years ago?

...and the Doctor as High Priest, still there, etc.,etc. etc.

You mean like the doctors that tell me to get a second opinion? That don't just give me orders and prescriptions but describe what they are doing and why? The doctors that give me information sheets on all the drugs they prescribe, explaining in detail what they are for, how they work, etc, etc? The doctors that refer me to other doctors, so they can make sure they haven't made a mistake?

You're right, Rouser, I mean, today's medicien is terrible, in the same state it was 30 years ago. I'm suprised anyone who sees a doctor lives. I mean, the fact that median life expectancy ahs continued to increase since 1970 must just be a fluke...they must assume anyone living to 40 will live on until 80, right? That explains the numbers, yeah.

 

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Huntsman [/i]

>>Refute it?
Refute what? You've offered nothign but one man's opinions. No evidence, no data, no research, no hard sources that can be examined.

Oh, bunk. I've provided more hard sources in these discussions than your entire Amen chorus of nay-sayers combined.

>> There is a wealth of research papers and literature and studies out there that support current medical practice.

Yeah, well it's hardly productive to talk about "current medical practice" unless you point to specifics, which you are apparently not inclined to do.

>> The vast majority of current practices are in use because they offer the best chance for the patient at the lowest cost. You've yet to provide any evidence that this is not the case.


More babbling generalities -- unsupported by any facts.

>>Thus, there is no refutation to make, as nothing has been evidenced that requires refutation.

No. You have not provided a single topic for refutation. That is your game. Now go play in traffic.

*sigh*

Well, first off, it would really help if you could rub both your brain cells together and figure out how to use the quote button. But that aside...

What specifics have you given? If I recall correctly, you gave some facts about people waking up during surgery, which were swiftly shown to be false and inaccurate by various sources posted as well as personal testimonies (those testimonies are as valid as Dr. Mendehlson's book, considering it is also a personal testimony. If you want to claim hard data, show something besides one ex-doctor's opinon from 26 years ago). Other than that it's been general statements about how bad modern medicine is. You expect me to go through every possible test and procedure in use today and give you specific reasons for it? Sorry, but I don't have the time to do that for someone too lazy to do his own research.

Pick a specific area, and we'll discuss it. So far, as soon as someone posts research that contradicts your so-called sources, you fly off onto another tangent. Your positions are indefensible. Your best sources are those that are considered fringe by the vast majority of people in the field. You claim intentional, abhorent practices, and then claim there is no conspiracy...even though no one but you seems to have heard about these practices or has details of them. Statistical data show that lifespans are longer today than ever before, and the percentage of that time spent active is also higher. Both length and quality of life are improved. People routinely recover or are successfully treated for conditions that would have been fatal 30 years ago.

Your unfounded assumptions, and the two bits of sourced data I've seen you post, are not a plethora of hard sources. Sorry. Try again. Especially when the links have not been to actual studies or research papers. Heck, the last "hard source" you posted was a news article based on an author's book, and concerned an event that happened between 30 and 70 years ago! Got any research? Real research? Backed with sources and statistics? Within, say, the last decade?

I didn't think so.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Huntsman [/i]

>>I mean, the fact that median life expectancy ahs continued to increase since 1970 must just be a fluke...they must assume anyone living to 40 will live on until 80, right? That explains the numbers, yeah.

The numbers, yeah. What numbers? The fact that the median age of death in the US is 74.37? And in comparison to other nations, it ranks right about where our students rank in science and math -- 50th place? What does that tell you? Modern Medicine would like to take whatever credit there is to take for increased longevity. But that is just more post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning. Fact is, if people are living somewhat longer, it may be because of increased prosperity, the absence of a major War, better life style habits and nutrition, and wisely, staying away from routine doctor visits.

 

[Vikram]

>>You are attempting to propagate a claim by him that procedures are being carried out for the entertainment or training of medics, with no genuine belief in efficacy of purpose.

Enetertainemnt? Never made any such claim. That was Dr. Vikham's strawman.

It's 'Vikram', by the way.

You posted, on 10-13-2004 at 05:16 AM:

Uh, why sure, I guess so. Why it would be so easy. Just walk up to any hospital administrator and ask him: "Do you perform surgery on people purely for entertainment/training value???

If the term 'entertainment' is my strawman, then why did you make the above statement?

 

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Vikram [/i]
"Vituperative troll, hypocrital, venoumous, hatred filled, etc., etc., etc. "Doc., you just lost the argument by sinking into the gutter.

Of course. Especially since you'd elevated the debate into the stratosphere by posting the term "Modern Medicine's Temple of Doom" in the very first post of this thread.

In any case, since it all boils down to evidence...

Please provide evidence for your claim that unneeded surgeries are routinely being performed for the purpose of training interns/residents.

 

[Vikram]

Quoted from Huntsman's sig
Science is the process of crash testing ideas; the scientist does not coddle an idea, or design tests to make it work. The scientist rams the idea into a brick wall head-on at 60mph, and knowledge is gained by examining the pieces. If the theory is solid, the pieces are from the wall.--Me

This is a superlative statement. May I quote it sometime?

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Huntsman [/i]

>>What specifics have you given? If I recall correctly, you gave some facts about people waking up during surgery, which were swiftly shown to be false and inaccurate by various sources posted as well as personal testimonies...


You recall incorrectly. I posted a recent news story from the Chicaago Sun Times. It cites a mainstream organization for the phenomena and its notice to thousands hospitals across the US to take preventive steps. No one on this board has refuted the story nor the phenomena. Get your facts straight.

The original post:

The nightmare is visited upon an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 surgical patients each year. It happens when the patient, under general anesthesia "wakes up" right in the middle of the procedure. One quarter of them report feeling excruciating pain while being unable to cry out.
"The sensation is described by some as being like 'entombed in a corpse.''

The Joint Commissions on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations sent out an alert as to the extent of the experience to thousands of hospitals across the country urging them to take steps to prevent the experience.

"'Some patients describe these occurrences as their 'worst hospital experience' and some determine to never again undergo surgery."

-- Chicago Sun Times, AP, 10/6/04


>>Got any research? Real research? Backed with sources and statistics? Within, say, the last decade?
I didn't think so.

Got any real point? Any specific subject??? I didn't think so.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Vikram [/i]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, why sure, I guess so. Why it would be so easy. Just walk up to any hospital administrator and ask him: "Do you perform surgery on people purely for entertainment/training value???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>If the term 'entertainment' is my strawman, then why did you make the above statement?

Because you falsly attributed the word to my post.

 

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Huntsman [/i]

>>Refute it?
Refute what? You've offered nothign but one man's opinions. No evidence, no data, no research, no hard sources that can be examined.

Oh, bunk. I've provided more hard sources in these discussions than your entire Amen chorus of nay-sayers combined.

You've yet to offer one 'hard source' for the assertion surgery is forced on people for the benefit of training surgeons.

Even Mendlesohn's words are couched in speculative terms. You've yet to come up with anything more than one source who is not considered credible as he has been proven unreliable on other issues.

But the real purpose was to improve the state's residency programs in cardiovascular surgery because "nothing beneficial happend to the brains of the mongoloid children -- and the surgeons knew that."

So who is he quoting there? That is a non sequitor. There are many, many explanations for the continuation of this surgery in spite of it transpiring to have no benefit. Why don't you come up with a list of ten and explain why the training program one is the most reliable answer?

If we have evidence (corroborated, independent, etc) that works, otherwise occam's razor would have to do. Off you go.

Moreover, the surgery had a fairly high mortality rate."Naturally, the university people were very upset when I cut out the operation. They couldn't figure out a better use for the Mongoloid children."

Prejudicial, again a non sequitor and again unsupported. He is poisoning well by attempting to paint a very cynical picture of the 'university people' and their motives.

It is hardly surprising the surgery had a high mortality rate, I do not see how that is relevant until you can demonstrate those recommending it did not think it gave benefits.

Mendlesohn may have successfully demonstrated to them that the outcomes of this procedure did not provide benefits to outweigh the risks. If he did, that is greatly to his credit. If, as he asserts, the procedure was for the benefit of training medics, and getting a use from all the nasty little cripples cluttering up the hallways I don't see how he would have succeeded in persuading the administration to change its policy.

I told you before I have witnessed very gruesome procedures carried out children with various problems, but chiefly behavioural disorders. I disagreed with those recommending and administering treatments (mostly ECT, but also things like tying kids up and locking them in the dark for hours), I thought those who believed in them wrong and misguided. I never saw any evidence that the medics and carers concerned were acting from a point of malice or total disregard.

Presenting correct evidence at the appropriate point in the organisation can and did change policy.

If it is true that things like this go on, for the reasons you state, please explain how that would not involve a conspiracy. If there is NO conspiracy proving your point would be simple. Write to a hospital and ask them if they carry out what you say. If they answer in the affirmative Then it is true and no conspiracy exists, if they answer negative then it is either false or they are covering up.

 

[Chris Haynes]

...You recall incorrectly. I posted a recent news story from the Chicaago Sun Times. It cites a mainstream organization for the phenomena and its notice to thousands hospitals across the US to take preventive steps. No one on this board has refuted the story nor the phenomena. Get your facts straight.....

It has been pointed out to you that newspaper articles are not the most reliable sources of evidence.

Try http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi or http://www.medscape.com/

And you might also try resources available here:
http://www.bloomingtonlibrary.org/catdata.htm

 

[Vikram]

Rouser2,

Just repeating this in case you missed it the first time around:

Please provide evidence for your claim that unneeded surgeries are routinely being performed for the purpose of training interns/residents.

 

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Vikram [/i]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, why sure, I guess so. Why it would be so easy. Just walk up to any hospital administrator and ask him: "Do you perform surgery on people purely for entertainment/training value???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>If the term 'entertainment' is my strawman, then why did you make the above statement?

Because you falsly attributed the word to my post.

Please post the date/time of the post in which I used the word entertainment to refer to your claim BEFORE you did. I hold that I used the word entertainment in reference to your own claim only AFTER you posted the above quote.

 

[Rouser2]

Please post the date/time of the post in which I used the word entertainment to refer to your claim BEFORE you did. I hold that I used the word entertainment in reference to your own claim only AFTER you posted the above quote.

Ah. well. It was neither me nor you who used the word first, but Benquin in a typical mis-attribution:

"Wewll it is speculative and an anecdote, but might be true.
Doesn't relate to your point though, you seemed to be suggesting that a proportion of routine surgery is done purely for the entertainment/training value of surgeons..."

10-12-2004 10:00

 

[Rouser2]

Rouser2,

Just repeating this in case you missed it the first time around:

Please provide evidence for your claim that unneeded surgeries are routinely being performed for the purpose of training interns/residents.

Are you questioning whether unneeded surgeries occur or the motivation for such unneeded surgeries???

 

[Benguin]

Ah. well. It was neither me nor you who used the word first, but Benquin in a typical mis-attribution:

"Wewll it is speculative and an anecdote, but might be true.
Doesn't relate to your point though, you seemed to be suggesting that a proportion of routine surgery is done purely for the entertainment/training value of surgeons..."

10-12-2004 10:00

Seems it be true ... at that stage I was not clear what was meant by;

But the real purpose was to improve the state's residency programs in cardiovascular surgery

That could mean a number of things. Though you haven't actually properly stated so, you seem to think it supports an argument you were toying with about training new medics.

You've yet to properly explain how exactly.

I wonder if purposely mis-spelling people's usernames in responses counts as an ad hom according to your 'definition'? probably not, but I'm sure you'd take umbridge, Arouser.

 

[Vikram]

Are you questioning whether unneeded surgeries occur or the motivation for such unneeded surgeries???

I thought that my question was quite unambiguous. You had said, "Hey, gotta train those interns/residents somehow.", thus making an extremely libellous accusation against the entire medical fraternity.

Please provide evidence for your claim that unneeded surgeries are routinely being performed FOR THE PURPOSE OF training interns/residents.

 

[Rouser2]

I thought that my question was quite unambiguous. You had said, "Hey, gotta train those interns/residents somehow.", thus making an extremely libellous accusation against the entire medical fraternity.

Please provide evidence for your claim that unneeded surgeries are routinely being performed FOR THE PURPOSE OF training interns/residents.

Oh, well now, there are one or two words here that need quantification. I mean, you're all for numbers and percentages, right? That's science. So just exactly what percentage numbers do you mean by "routine" since I never used that term and to what specific surgeries, or would you have me tablulate all surgeries together

 

[Vikram]

Oh, well now, there are one or two words here that need quantification. I mean, you're all for numbers and percentages, right? That's science. So just exactly what percentage numbers do you mean by "routine" since I never used that term and to what specific surgeries, or would you have me tablulate all surgeries together

1) Take a sample set of any type of surgery that you want.
2) Demonstrate that the actual number of surgeries performed is more than two standard deviations in excess of the number of surgeries indicated.
3) Demonstrate that this excess is a result of a plot to train interns/residents.

That's science.

 

[Vitnir]

Can these events explain the out-of body experiences where people say they remember things said during a surgery?

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Vikram [/i]


>>1) Take a sample set of any type of surgery that you want.

"...Ten-year follow-up of survival and myocardial infarction in the randomized Coronary Artery Surgery Study. Alderman EL, Bourassa MG, Cohen LS, Davis KB, Kaiser GG, Killip T, Mock MB, Pettinger M, Robertson TL, Stanford University, California.
The Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) randomized 780 patients to an initial strategy of coronary surgery or medical therapy. Of medically randomized patients, 6% had surgery within 6 months and a total of 40% had surgery by 10 years. At 10 years, there was no difference in cumulative survival"

Comment: In other words "unnecessary surgery."

http://www.medical-library.net/sites/ _coronary_artery_bypass_graft_and_coronary_angiopl<br%20/>asty_indications.html
(type in CASS study)

2) Demonstrate that the actual number of surgeries performed is more than two standard deviations in excess of the number of surgeries indicated.

The number of surgeries "indicated" in the above example was shown to be zero.

>>3) Demonstrate that this excess is a result of a plot to train interns/residents.

>>That's science.

No, that is not science. Science does not measure motivation for mal-practice.