Hacker News Reader

Comment by obeattie | Hacker News Reader

> By cherry-picking patients with low odds of complications, Dr. Scheinin felt he could operate almost as safely without blood as with it.

And what does he suppose the odds would be if he applied the same cherry-picking whilst operating with the option of a blood transfusion?

I'm not necessarily advocating for reliance on blood transfusions here, but the logic (and ethics) of this seem highly questionable.

View on HN

I think the point is that if you have few complicating factor, then the risk of the bloodless (vs. normal) surgery is much reduced and possibly acceptable. On the other hand, if you have these factors, then the additional risk might be too high. I think you might just be responding to the loaded word "cherrypicked"; the poor wording is chosen by the NYTimes, not the doctor.

People willing to have a blood transfusion already have plenty of options, so factor them out of your analysis. (They are already 'cherry-picked' by every other doctor.)

Among those who would prefer not to receive blood, should the doctor be experimenting with this novel approach on all patients, without regard to a risk of complications? How would that be more ethical?

The transfusions carry their own risk. So if you cherry pick properly you can end up where using a transfusion gives more risk than not.

Also, when you start a new technology you always do the low hanging fruit first, so cherry picking is pretty normal and reasonable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com