[creshal]

> 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.

[mikecsh]

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".

[creshal]

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.