6 ms·

That would have potentially serious permanent and irreversible consequences. It's much different from losing $200k by having to sell your car at the end of the

That would have potentially serious permanent and irreversible consequences. It's much different from losing $200k by having to sell your car at the end of the race. And there are various factors that affect the sterility of the instruments, some of which are out of the doctors' control. It is not OK to give a doctor HIV just because the maintenance people didn't service the machine correctly, causing it to output clean-looking but infected instruments.

msandford 7y ago
But it's OK to do that to a patient because "reasons"? Why are the doctors more important than the patients? The harm to patients is serious, permanent and irreversible too. Your argument doesn't seem to make sense to me.
- a_t48 7y ago
  The argument is that it's not okay to do in either case, I believe. There's a risk in either case, but the possible exposure to patients is necessary (they need a possibly life saving procedure), whereas the risk to doctors is not necessary (they don't need to be cut open). You'd have to prove that increasing the risk of doctor infection would lead to a lower rate of patient infection. That seems unlikely, just from the fact that the doctor himself could be a vector for infecting a patient. You're also endangering anyone else the doctor comes in contact with in their personal life.
  - msandford 7y ago
    > You'd have to prove that increasing the risk of doctor infection would lead to a lower rate of patient infection. The point isn't to infect doctors. The point is to make them (potentially) subject to the tools they're about to use as a way to ensure that they are sufficiently involved in designing and overseeing the systems that ultimately move the needle on patient outcomes. When things are done sufficiently well these kinds of steps aren't necessary. We don't make the engineering team that designs a bridge walk/drive across it first because bridges have an exceedingly low failure rate and the failures that do happen aren't infant mortality (you designed it wrong) they're old (you maintained it wrong).
DoctorOetker 7y ago
So who is best positioned to know which factors are out of the doctor's control? a tax payer? or the doctor? this system would in fact quickly result in attention to these factors out of their control. a lot of people think increased discussion means bad news it's not because a measure increases the amount of discussion that it can't be a good measure, if it helps unearth the actual problems

msandford 7y ago

But it's OK to do that to a patient because "reasons"? Why are the doctors more important than the patients? The harm to patients is serious, permanent and irreversible too. Your argument doesn't seem to make sense to me.

a_t48 7y ago
The argument is that it's not okay to do in either case, I believe. There's a risk in either case, but the possible exposure to patients is necessary (they need a possibly life saving procedure), whereas the risk to doctors is not necessary (they don't need to be cut open). You'd have to prove that increasing the risk of doctor infection would lead to a lower rate of patient infection. That seems unlikely, just from the fact that the doctor himself could be a vector for infecting a patient. You're also endangering anyone else the doctor comes in contact with in their personal life.
- msandford 7y ago
  > You'd have to prove that increasing the risk of doctor infection would lead to a lower rate of patient infection. The point isn't to infect doctors. The point is to make them (potentially) subject to the tools they're about to use as a way to ensure that they are sufficiently involved in designing and overseeing the systems that ultimately move the needle on patient outcomes. When things are done sufficiently well these kinds of steps aren't necessary. We don't make the engineering team that designs a bridge walk/drive across it first because bridges have an exceedingly low failure rate and the failures that do happen aren't infant mortality (you designed it wrong) they're old (you maintained it wrong).

DoctorOetker 7y ago

So who is best positioned to know which factors are out of the doctor's control? a tax payer? or the doctor? this system would in fact quickly result in attention to these factors out of their control. a lot of people think increased discussion means bad news it's not because a measure increases the amount of discussion that it can't be a good measure, if it helps unearth the actual problems