3 ms·
Well the concept is now being studied quite closely. Had someone taken it seriously thirty years ago it's quite possible that the net amount of suffering that
by jcims 1y ago
Well the concept is now being studied quite closely. Had someone taken it seriously thirty years ago it's quite possible that the net amount of suffering that millions of patients have endured since then could have been reduced.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9599830/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9599830/
I'm comfortable calling that shameful. Not on any one in particular, it's a systemic problem that could be reduced with sufficient tenacity and courage to take risks.
- ch4s3 1y agoThere's limited time and a finite supply of doctors and researchers. They can't study everything that's promising all at once, and good ideas fall through the cracks all of the time.
- JamesSwift 1y agoI think this clears a bar of things that are useful and simple to study. Theres basically no effort involved. If it ends up beneficial we just update job postings from 'daytime infusion tech' to 'nighttime infusion tech'. Instant improvement in outcomes. I doubt you even need to clear this in any way to get the study greenlit.
- jcims 1y agoAgreed. Scheduling is patient discretion anyway. It's the lowest bar possible as far as I can tell.
- refurb 1y ago> Had someone taken it seriously thirty years ago it's quite possible that the net amount of suffering that millions of patients have endured since then could have been reduced. You can only say that with hindsight because of the data over the past 30 years. What if the data showed the opposite? Then the doctor would have given his patients a worse outcome all on a "hunch".