3 ms·
Depends on the type of pain. The pain afterwards I can manage, the pain during is of a completely different magnitude. But even if they could guarantee it woul
by Aaargh20318 10y ago
Depends on the type of pain. The pain afterwards I can manage, the pain during is of a completely different magnitude.
But even if they could guarantee it would be 100% painless, I would opt for GA every time. The problem is being operated upon while fully aware of what is happening. We don't even treat animals that badly. If you bring your dog to the vet to have tooth fixed they put him under, but a human has to suffer through the experience ?
- blktiger 10y agoGA can be extremely dangerous for some people. I know someone who has had several knee surgeries without GA because they don't handle GA well enough to make it worth the risks (death, for example). There are very good reasons why a lot of procedures are done without GA.
- rscho 10y agoIt is highly likely that even if your relative is very sick, the odds of him/her dying due to general anesthesia are pretty low. The amount of people for whom GA itself is "extremely dangerous" is extremely small. Anesthesiologists optimize. Their job is to counsel you on what they think is best, to lower the odds of complication. We often have to put people under who are very, very sick due to surgical constraints. A crushing majority of the time, nothing bad happens. It's all a question of lowering the probability.