3 ms·
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
by 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).