[dmurray]

I'd definitely have a safe but painful surgery for a condition that has a 3% chance of killing me if untreated. I'd also have surgery that had a 3% chance of success for an otherwise terminal condition (if I could find a surgeon willing to operate...)

But 10% vs 13% doesn't feel as significant to me. Maybe this is irrational.

[Aeolun]

If you hear, people with a stent are 30% more likely to die than people who have open heart surgery, does that put it in perspective?

I would personally think a 3% difference in overal mortality is certainly worth a little while recovering.

[irjustin]

I don't think it's irrational at all. It's risk tolerance.

For myself, I believe the pain and anguish is worth the 3%, given all other things equal. Others like yourself, might not.

Maybe I'm the irrational one.

At the end of the day, the point of the article is exactly that - so you can make an informed decision.

I choose to have my 3% back; You get less pain/recovery.

Pre whistleblowing, there was no choice. It was stent 100% and, oversimplified, 3% more people died without having gotten to make that choice because the study was funded by the stent guys. It was decided for them.