Risks of Surgery must be weighed

[Guest guest]

Very often difficult surgical procedures are thought of as the fruit we enjoy

from modern scientific and medical progress. Unfortunately their is a very

frightening downside. You also must know that I know of some people who have had

excellent outcomes from difficult surgeries.But is the risk worth the chance

of making things much worse. Your doctor should be able to give you firm

statistics on the success rates of the sugery what benefits are expected AND

what

the risks are of an adverse outcome, what can go wrong. You should also be able

to speak to other patients who have successfully had the operation and are

satisfied and willing to discuss it. If this cannot or will not be provided, it

should raise a warning flag! ARE the doctors statistics backed up by real

people or is it from statistical manipulation of data defining benefit as anyone

who survives the procedure.

Arnold,

a case history came to my knowledge that is extraordinarily tragic. I got to

know the patient herself, and she told me the story. So no second hand gossip.

During her micro surgery on the cerebellum, the surgeon made a mistake, the

instrument ( fine needle ) broke, and a piece of it got stuck in the

cerebellum. It is still there, to remove it would enlarge the damage.

The outcome of the surgery was devastating to her: her condition has worsened

since, she is disabled to a degree she cannot do her daily chores any more,

driving ability is gone, she can walk, but only with a walker, has to take

medication and this - combined with the other causes - has given her the problem

of extreme overweight.

She filed against the surgeon re malpractice.

At court she was granted nothing, although the surgeon frankly admitted at

court that he had made a mistake.

The woman judge literally said: " These things happen. If I judge him guilty,

No doctor would Ever have the opportunity to do Anything Any more. " (case of

precedence)

To the fact, that the patient was in a disabled condition caused by this

surgery, and that she needed help for her every day life (that costs an awful

lot

of money here, which was also an issue of her filing!) the woman judge had

nothing but the scathing remark: " You have children, they can look after you. "

Behind the scene the financial power of the insurance companies tried to

prevent a judgement unfavorable to the surgeon, because they would have been the

ones to pay the bill.

The patient's lawyer was so upset he went to the state's prosecutor and filed

against this woman judge.

When the patient asked her insurance company to help her finance the revision

of this trial, her own insurance company kicked her out, and would not pay

any costs for her lawyer any more.

The husband of this patient bluntly recommended her to commit suicide, as to

his opinion she was nothing but a waste now.

This is the case history and the extreme outcome for the social life of the

patient.

What is important for us:

Do surgeons, when they do the legal education to the patients, speak about

the possible risks of micro surgery, mention that it is possible the instrument

breaks and partly remains in the brain, with the consequence of worsening the

condition to the degree of disability?

Or is the whole thing hushed to the broader public?

So many jump on the bandwagon, with the argument " This is new, so it must be

an improved treatment. " , never knowing what is going on backstage.

I consent, if you might want to spread these news to the groups and people

who would benefit.

Best regards to all,

Katharina