5 ms·
A big part of the problem is that as patients, we observe single discrete outcomes. For doctors an aggregate 1% chance is low, but the realization of the outco
by uniqueuid 2y ago
A big part of the problem is that as patients, we observe single discrete outcomes.
For doctors an aggregate 1% chance is low, but the realization of the outcome in a single person is not a percentage, its binary bad side effects or not.
Admittedly, doctors could usually do better in communicating risks (e.g. see the famous example of 1/3 risk of impotence, which patients interpret either as 1 out of 3 people, 1 out of 3 times having sex, or 1/3 of the time of sex).
- JohnFen 2y ago> For doctors an aggregate 1% chance is low Anybody who has played much D&D knows that a 1% chance isn't as low as it sounds.
- wlesieutre 2y agoI was thinking XCOM. Rely on a 90% chance to hit a couple of times and you'll lose the mission.
- mistrial9 2y agounfortunately I agree that 1% is non-negligible.. I met a man who had Lasik eye procedure around 2000 and it went badly.. prism vision for life.
- itronitron 2y agoMany years ago, while developing data analysis software, my employer was able to receive a 'sample' dataset of patient outcomes from a prospective client. There were many fatalities as the patient outcome of elective surgeries.
- rangerelf 2y agoIt doesn't matter what the probabilities are when the stakes are high: - 1% chance of living the rest of your life in mind numbing pain - 50% chance of having to remove that pesky wisdom tooth (numbers pulled out of thin air) In the first case, I'd really really think about it hard and deep, and question myself if it's really that necessary; in the second, meh, worst case I lose a wisdom tooth.