3 ms·

Hospitals worldwide should be optimized for increased patient comfort even at the cast of marginally lowering survival (let's say 1%) and increasing cost (again

by nnq 8y ago

Hospitals worldwide should be optimized for increased patient comfort even at the cast of marginally lowering survival (let's say 1%) and increasing cost (again 1%)! Almost all patients would prefer it. But it's hard to convince people that often in life paying slightly more for a statistically slightly worse outcome increases you comfort ~10x and is 1000% worth it! After all, we live to feel good, and living is only worth it as long as we feel good doing it! ...but no, we just have to insist that we want the absolutely best things (as customers) and that we need to be as efficient as possible (as service providers). This combination of constraints makes life a living hell that I'm not sure why we can still stand. Also there's those maniacs that absolutely hate being or making others COMFORTABLE, but making life worse for them would be sooo enjoyable.

noxToken 8y ago
I don't want to create a false dichotomy, but it looks like you're saying you can have either one of two things: increased comfort with a higher chance of death and cost or a maintain to the low level of comfort with a higher chance of successful recovery. You go on to say: > After all, we live to feel good, and living is only worth it as long as we feel good doing it! I think I get what you're going for, but I'd rather be uncomfortable in the hospital for a week in my 40s if that means I get to live another 40 or 50 years. I think a lot of other people would also feel the same.
- kwhitefoot 8y ago
  He's talking about losing 1% of your future life not 100%.
- nnq 8y ago
  The dichotomy is real, I know a thing or two of how hospitals work and what prioritizing comfort would actually mean. But I'd still choose it. > but I'd rather be uncomfortable in the hospital for a week in my 40s if that means I get to live another 40 or 50 years Yeah, if you're the 1% that could've actually died if not continuously and repeatedly checked upon and pestered with tens of mostly unnecessary tests, or if you need that expensive life saving drug whose costs would've been covered if less money were spent on better air-conditioning, lighting and soundproofing... bad luck for you. The other 99 would prefer the additional comfort. Heck, there's many people who avoid going to hospitals when they know they should because they know how uncomfortable they are, and some end up dying because of that...

by nnq 8y ago

noxToken 8y ago

I don't want to create a false dichotomy, but it looks like you're saying you can have either one of two things: increased comfort with a higher chance of death and cost or a maintain to the low level of comfort with a higher chance of successful recovery. You go on to say: > After all, we live to feel good, and living is only worth it as long as we feel good doing it! I think I get what you're going for, but I'd rather be uncomfortable in the hospital for a week in my 40s if that means I get to live another 40 or 50 years. I think a lot of other people would also feel the same.

kwhitefoot 8y ago
He's talking about losing 1% of your future life not 100%.
nnq 8y ago
The dichotomy is real, I know a thing or two of how hospitals work and what prioritizing comfort would actually mean. But I'd still choose it. > but I'd rather be uncomfortable in the hospital for a week in my 40s if that means I get to live another 40 or 50 years Yeah, if you're the 1% that could've actually died if not continuously and repeatedly checked upon and pestered with tens of mostly unnecessary tests, or if you need that expensive life saving drug whose costs would've been covered if less money were spent on better air-conditioning, lighting and soundproofing... bad luck for you. The other 99 would prefer the additional comfort. Heck, there's many people who avoid going to hospitals when they know they should because they know how uncomfortable they are, and some end up dying because of that...