|
|
#1 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Newsweek published an article that said:
Quote:
Does this mean that more medical procedures actually killed more patients than it helped? If so, what does this mean about our general knowledge of medicine? Finally, if this is the start of many reevaluations of medical procedures then could we find a better way to treat something as horrible as AIDS or cancer? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Okay...so what I'm getting from this is that they've astoundingly found a way to safely restart a heart that has been stopped for as much an an hour or more...But they didn't additionally assert that the brain suffering from a lack of oxygen for upwards of an hour or more would remain undamaged...
I'm not sure I'd -like- to be brought back from "death" even with a perfectly healthy and safe heart, if I had suffered any amount of brain damage as well. As to your pondering as to whether "more medical procedures actually killed more patients than it helped?" I don't assert that this discovery proves that even of traditional heart attack treatments. The previous method may have saved fewer people than this proposed new method, but it -definately- saved more people than doing absolutely nothing would have. A new discovery leading to a more effective treatment isn't a condemnation of previous methods, or of the ways in which those previous methods were applied. The field grows and changes, new discoveries lead to new treatments, lead to new cures. That's just the course of science and medicine. I very much doubt that this is going to somehow call into question all of medical science, it was a new discovery that is leading to new treatments, the usefulness of which this article doesn't convince me of entirely on its own. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Well, sometimes drastic rewrites demonstrate dramatic flaws in previous medicine, but this is rare, and certainly not the case here. The amount of people not revived by previous methods was certainly greater than the number that this new method seems to be able to provide, but that doesn't mean the old method killed people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
is against custom titles
|
You can't seriously blame modern medicine for being ignorant of something so unintuitive. This is just another advance in the field of emergency treatment and resuscitation. Previous methods are by no means bad just because we found something that's better. Like they've said above me, 15% survival rate is MUCH better than a 0% survival rate.
Now, had we recently discovered something incredibly simple and easily tested was actually really harmful like, say, epinephrine actually poisoning you instead of helping you at all, then I think you could lay some blame on some people for not doing simple tests. However, this is something that very few people would consider, and fewer even would test. This won't call for a reevaluation of modern medicine by any stretch of the imagination; it's just another advancement. It also won't miraculously lead to some discovery of an ingenious AIDS or cancer treatment. This is about people who died from cardiac arrest; there's really no correlation. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 360
|
lets face facts, as time goes on, modern society will be far more developed to deal with such medical procedures. fact is, we are well ahead now of centuries past, it's just the tale of time that determines how advanced we can become
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 北海道 釧路
Posts: 643
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I think the really interesting thing about the advances of modern medicine is that medicine leads to our increased lifespan but our increased lifespan is why we need the advances in medicine. Our bodies are still being born with a 40 year lifespan intended. I mean, it should come as no surprise that things like our teeth start to go at a certain age, we start to go bald, go grey, and start to have our various internal organs lose efficiency. They're still built to only last 50 years, and all of this modern medicine is just an attempt to eke out a few more years of use from our body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
FFR Player
|
Living longer just means you are dying slower...
At any rate, i was merely suggesting such questions to promote conversation, if i had thought it would be a one sided argument against me then i wouldnt have asked. Besides, a lot of the new medical breakthroughs help in the progression of helping against cancer and AIDS but they arent directly related. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|