|
|
|
|
|
by creshal
1864 days ago
|
|
> 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.