4 ms·

> I don't think "age" is a valid cause of death. Uhm, considering our technological advancement in the medical sector I'd argue "age" should be the only valid

> I don't think "age" is a valid cause of death. Uhm, considering our technological advancement in the medical sector I'd argue "age" should be the only valid cause of death. Sadly it isn't for obvious reasons (firearms, car crashes, everything else related to safety etc., hunger, lack of medical equipment and supplies etc. etc. etc.) ... and ironically the article is one of those causes that could and should be easily avoided.

KineticLensman 4y ago
> Uhm, considering our technological advancement in the medical sector I'd argue "age" should be the only valid cause of death. For this to be true we would have to be able to predict and treat every possible disease and condition, wherever it occurred. When I had my Ventricular Fibrillation event I was lucky that it occurred just outside the door of a place that had a defibrillator. If it had occurred twenty minutes later I would have been on my own in the countryside. No amount of credible technological advancement would have saved me then. Oh, and there are quite a few cancers and other diseases for which there is no known cure.
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  > "No amount of credible technological advancement would have saved me then." Assuming there was a cause of your fibrillation; maybe advancement in imaging and detection could have spotted worsening rhythm or small damage developing in the heart, or growing chemical imbalance in time before it happened, and given you an Implantable defibrillator[1] in advance, or a hypothetical wearable one, or treatment to repair the damage and avoid it happening. I sometimes wonder what it would take in terms of FutureTech to "save everyone"; how about if you were alone but concsious, defibrillator tech builtin to every vehicle (electric vehicles at least have some high voltage power already; sensing and cables wouldn't be a big addition to them) would have got a treatment close enough to be useful. If you were unconscious and wearing a watch with ECG features, it could detect you falling over and alert somewhere, a defibrillator drone takes off, today's fast drones can do 50+mph it could have spikes to get through your clothing and be alerting a telemedicine doctor to remote view it... I suppose we have to rule out teleportation, but humanoid robots are fairly credible, suffusing the planetary surface with nanotech is uncomfortably credible and that possibly changes a lot. e.g. blood additives which carry much more oxygen and can keep your brain alive after your heart stops pumping until help can arrive, or etc. [1] https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/arrhythmia/prevention--treatment-of-arrhythmia/implantable-cardioverter-defibrillator-icd https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/arrhythmia/prevention...
  - KineticLensman 4y ago
    > maybe advancement in imaging and detection could have spotted It's possible that I have hidden Long QT syndrome [0]. Mine can be detected following drug provocation using adrenaline but under normal conditions it doesn't show on my ECG. It is undetectable on MRI or angiograms because it is electrochemical rather than mechanical in nature. There are emerging genetic tests that can pick up some of the possible congenital causes. > If you were unconscious and wearing a watch with ECG features Current watches with ECG features don't detect my Right Bundle Branch Block [1], let alone the hidden Long QT. [Edit] > and given you an Implantable defibrillator They are quite expensive to implant prophylactically, create a small risk of infection in the heart itself and require explanting every few years for a battery change. I had one implanted after the event. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_QT_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_QT_syndrome [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_bundle_branch_block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_bundle_branch_block
    - jodrellblank 4y ago
      It was the "credible technological advancement" I was going for. "We can't do it today", I don't dispute.

KineticLensman 4y ago

> Uhm, considering our technological advancement in the medical sector I'd argue "age" should be the only valid cause of death. For this to be true we would have to be able to predict and treat every possible disease and condition, wherever it occurred. When I had my Ventricular Fibrillation event I was lucky that it occurred just outside the door of a place that had a defibrillator. If it had occurred twenty minutes later I would have been on my own in the countryside. No amount of credible technological advancement would have saved me then. Oh, and there are quite a few cancers and other diseases for which there is no known cure.

jodrellblank 4y ago
> "No amount of credible technological advancement would have saved me then." Assuming there was a cause of your fibrillation; maybe advancement in imaging and detection could have spotted worsening rhythm or small damage developing in the heart, or growing chemical imbalance in time before it happened, and given you an Implantable defibrillator[1] in advance, or a hypothetical wearable one, or treatment to repair the damage and avoid it happening. I sometimes wonder what it would take in terms of FutureTech to "save everyone"; how about if you were alone but concsious, defibrillator tech builtin to every vehicle (electric vehicles at least have some high voltage power already; sensing and cables wouldn't be a big addition to them) would have got a treatment close enough to be useful. If you were unconscious and wearing a watch with ECG features, it could detect you falling over and alert somewhere, a defibrillator drone takes off, today's fast drones can do 50+mph it could have spikes to get through your clothing and be alerting a telemedicine doctor to remote view it... I suppose we have to rule out teleportation, but humanoid robots are fairly credible, suffusing the planetary surface with nanotech is uncomfortably credible and that possibly changes a lot. e.g. blood additives which carry much more oxygen and can keep your brain alive after your heart stops pumping until help can arrive, or etc. [1] https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/arrhythmia/prevention--treatment-of-arrhythmia/implantable-cardioverter-defibrillator-icd https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/arrhythmia/prevention...
- KineticLensman 4y ago
  > maybe advancement in imaging and detection could have spotted It's possible that I have hidden Long QT syndrome [0]. Mine can be detected following drug provocation using adrenaline but under normal conditions it doesn't show on my ECG. It is undetectable on MRI or angiograms because it is electrochemical rather than mechanical in nature. There are emerging genetic tests that can pick up some of the possible congenital causes. > If you were unconscious and wearing a watch with ECG features Current watches with ECG features don't detect my Right Bundle Branch Block [1], let alone the hidden Long QT. [Edit] > and given you an Implantable defibrillator They are quite expensive to implant prophylactically, create a small risk of infection in the heart itself and require explanting every few years for a battery change. I had one implanted after the event. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_QT_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_QT_syndrome [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_bundle_branch_block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_bundle_branch_block
  - jodrellblank 4y ago
    It was the "credible technological advancement" I was going for. "We can't do it today", I don't dispute.