‘I Had Never Faced the Reality of Death’: A Surgeon Becomes a Patient
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Couldn't recommend it enough.
But that said, the experiential knowledge they would gain from the process is huge. Being a patient is worrying, loss of autonomy, undignified (surgery/anaesthesia causes changes to digestion & bowel function) painful..
We sometimes say things like "I wish town planners had to spend a day in a wheelchair going around the streetscape" -well I wish surgeons had to deal with having somebody else wipe their bum, and live with nagging pain, and the after effects of opioid pain relief.
I'm glad I had my most recent bout of surgery. I left a lot of negative feedback on the hospital about their discharge policy and lack of physio consult for post-operative recovery, the IV drip, nighttime monitoring.. trivium they could fix in seconds which made my time in hospital sub-par.
Sorry to hear of that lousy experience.
Mental asylums, suicide treatment, etc. - those are the doctors / nurses that should experience being patients. Fortunately I've never been committed, but I've heard horror stories even in modern times. Not to say I believe those places aren't necessary - they definitely are, and have helped / saved people lives to the point where they're thankful for being involuntarily committed - but those in power should have empathy for the people being treated.
Not getting into details, the main surgery I had was a routine operation which cured an otherwise life-threatening issue. So I'm a bit biased here.
If you haven't read about it, it was kind of amazing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
Basically a psychologist and his team got themselves admitted to 12 different hospitals by claiming auditory hallucinations. From that point on, they acted completely normal and claimed they no longer experienced any symptoms. The hospitals diagnosed nearly all of them with schizophrenia.
In the aftermath, one hospital demanded to be re-evaluated. The psychologist agreed. Over the next few weeks, the hospital found dozens of fake patients, despite the psychologist sending none at all.
My question was always "why do transplant surgeons have two kidneys?"
Not sure that necessarily follows, but I believe that is the point.
Furthermore, assuming transplant surgeons are rare, then that surgeon is probably the only healthy person who can’t easily donate their kidney; after all, who would do the surgery?
Or could you ever really understand what it's like to lose a child if it never happened to you?
If consenting surgeon A is to perform surgery procedure X on A such that the success chance of X on person i in the set of patients I (with the disease) is increased, then A necessarily has a higher chance of saving more lives in exchange for potentially accidentally killing/injuring himself.
So in fact, restricting X on A is analytically unethical when the set of patients i have a high probability of death or disability.
But it's also analytically unethical to perform X on A if X results in permanent damage (i.e. remove a kidney).
I've had a lot of surgery, and the best surgeons understand what it's like to be a patient, but perhaps things aren't as complex as it being totally untenable.
I can see an ENT undergoing a tonsillectomy that he doesn't need so that his friends can learn, and he can learn what patients go through. Or something else relatively minor - adenoids and so on.
I would say that further, doctors who prescribe medications that you can recover from (stimulants, ketamine etc.) should take them first so they know what their patients are going through.
In fact, I think most surgeons/doctors would agree with the above.
My husband had a Whipple five months into our marriage. The surgeon was great. Empathetic. Responsive. Took all the time we needed. The nurses, however, were overworked which led to (not quite) inattentiveness. Thankfully, I stayed in the hospital with my husband for two weeks and did lots of things the nurses normally did (measuring urine output, etc.) and was an advocate for my husband.
It was only after he left the hospital that I learned all sorts of things I was entitled to: meals on the hospital, a deal on parking, etc. It would have been so much easier had I known this. We were fortunate not to have to worry about money. But it was annoying as hell and I wrote a letter about my two experiences. Heard from the surgeon. Not anyone else. And this was at Georgetown University Hospital. I expected more.
I'm not entirely sure what kind of response would surpass the one that you received. I am impressed that the surgeon himself took the time to reach out, and I would value that immensely if I were in your shoes.
Here's hoping the surgery went far better than the hospital's communication of its resources. My layman's understanding is that pancreatic surgery is challenging.
Doesn't stop doctors suggesting and performing "unnecessary surgery" knowlingly to other patients all the time. It's a booming business.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/18/unneces...
Just one case of such a racket:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-prosecutors-target-phys...
I also had "minor" complications after surgery & discharge. The IV was left in, and the bandage was too tight for the swelling. I had to return to the hospital the next morning.
Another time I spent 4 days in hospital with GI issues, after being sent home 36 hours earlier from overnight in the ER, and just being sick in hospital for the better part of a week was frustrated and tiring. I went home again (expected discharge)and recovered, got my energy back but it took a few more days.
Having to hang out with a patient the entire time might be an equal learning experience.
she never wore a seat belt.
Why? She's immortal.
And you got yourself a nice haiku