How Many Die from Medical Mistakes

Off Topic
61

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
This is a popular argument supporting Double Duce Human Lifespans Nearly Constant for 2,000 Years | Live Science [/quote]

Yes, that is basically what I’m saying. A 40 year life expectancy doesn’t mean what people think it means.

And I’d still like to see numbers with abortion factored in. The most dangerous time for a human life today is probably the womb.[/quote]

…and that article misses the point. Even when you take out the large contribution of the decline in infant mortality, life expectancy at any age (beyond childhood) has risen over the last hundred or so years.
(view again that CDC graph–percent surviving at a given age over time–I cited above.)[/quote]

But not nearly as much as people think when they see a life expectancy of 38. And not nearly as much as I would have guessed.

I think you are missing my point. When people see a life expectancy in the 1800s of 40, they think 40 is like being 80 today. It wasn’t. A 40 year old then was really in as good of shape as a 40 year old today. It’s a reflection on health and wellbeing more than survivability. Longevity of health really hasn’t improved, survivability despite health has. And general health can be seen to be decreasing with an ever increasing occurrence of conditions. Just so far, medicine has increased survivability enough to compensate. BUT it looks like we are starting to lose that battle.

Further, I believe that there is a link even if indirect (though I think some is direct) between medicine and a decline in health.

62

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think you are missing my point. When people see a life expectancy in the 1800s of 40, they think 40 is like being 80 today. It wasn’t. A 40 year old then was really in as good of shape as a 40 year old today. It’s a reflection on health and wellbeing more than survivability. Longevity of health really hasn’t improved, survivability despite health has.[/quote]

Ever heard of the theory called “compression of morbidity”? That contradicts most of your points.
Being able to walk is probably one of the most important things of wellbeing. A person with congenital hip dysplasia will suffer from arthosis at a much earlier age, if they don’t receive the right treatment in their childhood.
Same goes for a elderly person with a hip fracture. Without a joint replacement, they would just lay in bed and die, because some fracture cannot heal the right.
People aged much faster in 1800 than today. Harder working condition, less knowledge about dangerous stuff (taking x-rays for fun was very popular at a certain time in the past) and malnutrition (e.g. goiter because no iodine was added to salt). The average 40 year old in 1800 was never as healthly as the average 40 year old today. Probably also missing some limbs, because there was no possibility to reattach an amputated finger…

63

1592×2400 344 KB

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Skeptix I know you’re an MD by why the fuck should we listen to you over cited medical research? Are you even published? I’ve seen you make pretty bold statements in a lot of threads revolving around medicine and healthcare. You seem overtly politicized. Just an observation.[/quote]

64

Medical milkshakes? Never heard of 'em.

65

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
This is a popular argument supporting Double Duce Human Lifespans Nearly Constant for 2,000 Years | Live Science [/quote]

Yes, that is basically what I’m saying. A 40 year life expectancy doesn’t mean what people think it means.

And I’d still like to see numbers with abortion factored in. The most dangerous time for a human life today is probably the womb.[/quote]

…and that article misses the point. Even when you take out the large contribution of the decline in infant mortality, life expectancy at any age (beyond childhood) has risen over the last hundred or so years.
(view again that CDC graph–percent surviving at a given age over time–I cited above.)[/quote]

But not nearly as much as people think when they see a life expectancy of 38. And not nearly as much as I would have guessed.

I think you are missing my point. When people see a life expectancy in the 1800s of 40, they think 40 is like being 80 today. It wasn’t. A 40 year old then was really in as good of shape as a 40 year old today. It’s a reflection on health and wellbeing more than survivability. Longevity of health really hasn’t improved, survivability despite health has. And general health can be seen to be decreasing with an ever increasing occurrence of conditions. Just so far, medicine has increased survivability enough to compensate. BUT it looks like we are starting to lose that battle.

Further, I believe that there is a link even if indirect (though I think some is direct) between medicine and a decline in health.[/quote]

These are valid questions, and some of them are testable. So do you have a statistic that demonstrates them?

For example, you conceptualize “the longevity of health,” and your conjecture is that it is not improved.
If the data show that the chances of being alive at every decade of life hs indeed improved over time–and it has–it would take a huge decrement in “longevity 0f health” to prove you correct.
Is there a measure of such a thing. Why, yes: QALY (quality-adjusted life years).
I am honestly interested, and could not find any such data. It may exist, and I will search harder. Can you show us the data where that QALY has declined–overall–in the US over a period of time.

This is a “provable” assertion; if you cannot prove something, it is just an opinion, and the basis of the opinion is questioned.

66

Also, lets not forget “age is just a number”… And while a 40 year old 150 years ago most certainly wasnt walking around with a cane due to the rigors of age like and 85 year old today, you can most certainly guarantee that EVERYONES quality of life, regardless of age, is wildly increased today.

Attribute that to clean water, improved hygiene, as well as medical practice… But given the choice I am sure most of us would rather be a 40 year old today than in 1850, or lose a limb today… or get cancer today… or have a heart attack today… etc…

67

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Skeptix I know you’re an MD by why the fuck should we listen to you over cited medical research? Are you even published? I’ve seen you make pretty bold statements in a lot of threads revolving around medicine and healthcare. You seem overtly politicized. Just an observation.[/quote]
[/quote]

Well, not as much as Mr. King, here, but I can say that the results were as horrifying.

68

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
This is a popular argument supporting Double Duce Human Lifespans Nearly Constant for 2,000 Years | Live Science [/quote]

Yes, that is basically what I’m saying. A 40 year life expectancy doesn’t mean what people think it means.

And I’d still like to see numbers with abortion factored in. The most dangerous time for a human life today is probably the womb.[/quote]

…and that article misses the point. Even when you take out the large contribution of the decline in infant mortality, life expectancy at any age (beyond childhood) has risen over the last hundred or so years.
(view again that CDC graph–percent surviving at a given age over time–I cited above.)[/quote]

But not nearly as much as people think when they see a life expectancy of 38. And not nearly as much as I would have guessed.

I think you are missing my point. When people see a life expectancy in the 1800s of 40, they think 40 is like being 80 today. It wasn’t. A 40 year old then was really in as good of shape as a 40 year old today. It’s a reflection on health and wellbeing more than survivability. Longevity of health really hasn’t improved, survivability despite health has. And general health can be seen to be decreasing with an ever increasing occurrence of conditions. Just so far, medicine has increased survivability enough to compensate. BUT it looks like we are starting to lose that battle.

Further, I believe that there is a link even if indirect (though I think some is direct) between medicine and a decline in health.[/quote]

These are valid questions, and some of them are testable. So do you have a statistic that demonstrates them?

For example, you conceptualize “the longevity of health,” and your conjecture is that it is not improved.
If the data show that the chances of being alive at every decade of life hs indeed improved over time–and it has–it would take a huge decrement in “longevity 0f health” to prove you correct.
Is there a measure of such a thing. Why, yes: QALY (quality-adjusted life years).
I am honestly interested, and could not find any such data. It may exist, and I will search harder. Can you show us the data where that QALY has declined–overall–in the US over a period of time.

This is a “provable” assertion; if you cannot prove something, it is just an opinion, and the basis of the opinion is questioned.
[/quote]

I agree, it would take a significant decline in general health to overcome the constantly improved survivability of conditions.

You could get at something close to what I’m talking about by looking at trends in chronic conditions. What have likelihood of getting arthritis, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, dementia, obesity, est been doing adjusted for age?

Sickness and disease at all levels of life are certainly more and more treatable every year. But, if we are getting sick more and more, the 2 start to balance each other out.

Look at the US life expectancy versus some European and Asian countries. It’s been shown we have better survivability of conditions than pretty much all of them. We just get sick a lot more than they do.

If you were to take the average American today in average health and put them in the 1850s would they survive as well and be as healthy as the average person in the 1850s? I think not.

As for the tie-in with medicine. It is undeniable the x-rays have given people cancer. The low fat high grain diet is pushed by doctors. Coconut oil was demonized by bad medical studies. The whole cholesterol myth has probably killed millions. The industryâ??s focus on treating symptoms rather than causes. Doctors not pushing what is known and has been known about the link between lifestyle and diet and cancer. Overmedication and prescription drug deaths. est.

If you really want to get technical with the subject of the thread, the current approach to the treatment and prevention of heart disease is little less than malpractice leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of people every year. Period. What doctors tell patients about diet and medication for heart disease is a freaking crime. Yes, they can revive you and do amazing open heart surgery now, but doctors share a lot of responsibility in giving people the condition in the first place. (I’m more than a little jaded on the subject)

69

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You could get at something close to what I’m talking about by looking at trends in chronic conditions. What have likelihood of getting arthritis, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, dementia, obesity, est been doing adjusted for age?
[/quote]

Sick people getting sick children. Really suprising…not!

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Sickness and disease at all levels of life are certainly more and more treatable every year. But, if we are getting sick more and more, the 2 start to balance each other out.
[/quote]

Life expectancy depending on technical advances is probably best discribed by a negative exponential function. It takes more and more effort to gain another liefe year.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Look at the US life expectancy versus some European and Asian countries. It’s been shown we have better survivability of conditions than pretty much all of them. We just get sick a lot more than they do.
[/quote]

Comparing a first world country to the third world is not very objective. Maybe Americans are overdiagnosed with deseases. If they find your cancer 3 months earlier, your mean survival will be 3 months longer, without any interventions.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you were to take the average American today in average health and put them in the 1850s would they survive as well and be as healthy as the average person in the 1850s? I think not.
[/quote]

But that would just show, that people do benefit from our health system.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
As for the tie-in with medicine. It is undeniable the x-rays have given people cancer. The low fat high grain diet is pushed by doctors. Coconut oil was demonized by bad medical studies. The whole cholesterol myth has probably killed millions. The industryâ??s focus on treating symptoms rather than causes. Doctors not pushing what is known and has been known about the link between lifestyle and diet and cancer. Overmedication and prescription drug deaths. est.
[/quote]

There are and there will always be errors in science. That’s why we continue to do research. And of course doctors tell people to eat more healthly, quit smoking, drink less booze. But it’s easier to take a pill than getting up 5 minutes earlier in the morning.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you really want to get technical with the subject of the thread, the current approach to the treatment and prevention of heart disease is little less than malpractice leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of people every year. Period. What doctors tell patients about diet and medication for heart disease is a freaking crime. Yes, they can revive you and do amazing open heart surgery now, but doctors share a lot of responsibility in giving people the condition in the first place. (I’m more than a little jaded on the subject)
[/quote]

Of course doctors tell people to eat more healthly, quit smoking, drink less booze. But it’s easier to take a pill than getting up 5 minutes earlier in the morning.
Hypothetically you suffer from joint pain. Would you stop lifting altogether or rather take a pain killer?
Freedom of choice is a greater good than health care.

70

[quote]Andy63477 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You could get at something close to what I’m talking about by looking at trends in chronic conditions. What have likelihood of getting arthritis, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, dementia, obesity, est been doing adjusted for age?
[/quote]

Sick people getting sick children. Really suprising…not!

[/quote]
You are insinuating these are genetic traits?

Life expectancy depending on technical advances is probably best discribed by a negative exponential function. It takes more and more effort to gain another liefe year.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Look at the US life expectancy versus some European and Asian countries. It’s been shown we have better survivability of conditions than pretty much all of them. We just get sick a lot more than they do.
[/quote]

Comparing a first world country to the third world is not very objective. Maybe Americans are overdiagnosed with deseases. If they find your cancer 3 months earlier, your mean survival will be 3 months longer, without any interventions.

[/quote]
What 3rd world countries are you talking about?

But that would just show, that people do benefit from our health system.

[/quote]
And that the current system causes the need of at least part of it’s own benefit.

There are and there will always be errors in science. That’s why we continue to do research. And of course doctors tell people to eat more healthly, quit smoking, drink less booze. But it’s easier to take a pill than getting up 5 minutes earlier in the morning.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you really want to get technical with the subject of the thread, the current approach to the treatment and prevention of heart disease is little less than malpractice leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of people every year. Period. What doctors tell patients about diet and medication for heart disease is a freaking crime. Yes, they can revive you and do amazing open heart surgery now, but doctors share a lot of responsibility in giving people the condition in the first place. (I’m more than a little jaded on the subject)
[/quote]

Of course doctors tell people to eat more healthly, quit smoking, drink less booze. But it’s easier to take a pill than getting up 5 minutes earlier in the morning.
Hypothetically you suffer from joint pain. Would you stop lifting altogether or rather take a pain killer?
Freedom of choice is a greater good than health care.[/quote]

You are missing the point. Doctors are telling millions of people to eat less healthy.

71

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

As for the tie-in with medicine. It is undeniable the x-rays have given people cancer. The low fat high grain diet is pushed by doctors. Coconut oil was demonized by bad medical studies. The whole cholesterol myth has probably killed millions. The industryâ??s focus on treating symptoms rather than causes. Doctors not pushing what is known and has been known about the link between lifestyle and diet and cancer. Overmedication and prescription drug deaths. est.

If you really want to get technical with the subject of the thread, the current approach to the treatment and prevention of heart disease is little less than malpractice leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of people every year. Period. What doctors tell patients about diet and medication for heart disease is a freaking crime. Yes, they can revive you and do amazing open heart surgery now, but doctors share a lot of responsibility in giving people the condition in the first place. (I’m more than a little jaded on the subject)
[/quote]

X rays have given people cancer… So we shield them now and use them as little as possible. We are working on it.

Doctors DO tell people about lifestyle and diet… Its up to the people to follow it. I dont understand where people get this idea that doctors dont tell people to practice healthier lifestyle habits.

I’m so tired of the “treating symptoms instead of causes” thing, This is so patently false its hard to know where to begin. They do BOTH. When you have an infection you are given BOTH an antibiotic (to treat the cause) and treatments for the pain, swelling, itching, and fever that go along with it. As long as there is a solution for the cause, medical pro’s use it.

You are also making the HUGE assumption that people follow the advice of their doctors in regards to eating. Even if we knew the perfect diet that cured all disease, you think “average” people wouldnt go to mcdonalds or eat themselves into diabetes and hypertension? They wouldnt give a shit and they have proven it. People who eat for other reasons than taste are a wild minority, and they arent following their doctors advice to do so.

72

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are insinuating these are genetic traits?
[/quote]

For many desesases we can only tract external causes in a small portion of the patients. Furthermore we can see familial clustering for them as well. We have discovered many alteration in the genomic code as the cause of certain symptoms. And not all of them are spontanous mutations since spermato-/ oogenesis.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What 3rd world countries are you talking about?
[/quote]

You mentioned Europe and Asia. In southern Europe the medical standard is not on par with the Scandinavian states or Great Britain. Most of Asia is still part of the third world. Furthermore Japan and South Korea can’t be compared with the US. The spectrum of deseases varies too much.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And that the current system causes the need of at least part of it’s own benefit.
[/quote]

But it’s certainly the main aim of the system. Rather an adverse effect.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are missing the point. Doctors are telling millions of people to eat less healthy.[/quote]

Ok, maybe I don’t understand your argument. (Partly because I don’t think it’s true) But please answer my question:
Hypothetically you suffer from joint pain. Would you stop lifting altogether or rather take a pain killer?

73

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

As for the tie-in with medicine. It is undeniable the x-rays have given people cancer. The low fat high grain diet is pushed by doctors. Coconut oil was demonized by bad medical studies. The whole cholesterol myth has probably killed millions. The industry�¢??s focus on treating symptoms rather than causes. Doctors not pushing what is known and has been known about the link between lifestyle and diet and cancer. Overmedication and prescription drug deaths. est.

If you really want to get technical with the subject of the thread, the current approach to the treatment and prevention of heart disease is little less than malpractice leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of people every year. Period. What doctors tell patients about diet and medication for heart disease is a freaking crime. Yes, they can revive you and do amazing open heart surgery now, but doctors share a lot of responsibility in giving people the condition in the first place. (I’m more than a little jaded on the subject)
[/quote]

X rays have given people cancer… So we shield them now and use them as little as possible. We are working on it.

Doctors DO tell people about lifestyle and diet… Its up to the people to follow it. I dont understand where people get this idea that doctors dont tell people to practice healthier lifestyle habits.

I’m so tired of the “treating symptoms instead of causes” thing, This is so patently false its hard to know where to begin. They do BOTH. When you have an infection you are given BOTH an antibiotic (to treat the cause) and treatments for the pain, swelling, itching, and fever that go along with it. As long as there is a solution for the cause, medical pro’s use it.

You are also making the HUGE assumption that people follow the advice of their doctors in regards to eating. Even if we knew the perfect diet that cured all disease, you think “average” people wouldnt go to mcdonalds or eat themselves into diabetes and hypertension? They wouldnt give a shit and they have proven it. People who eat for other reasons than taste are a wild minority, and they arent following their doctors advice to do so.[/quote]

Doctors told me to eat whole grains and stop eating fat. That is telling me to eat in the worst possible way for what they were trying to prevent.

For years doctors and the ADA were telling diabetics to eat high carb diets.

The issue is not people not following the doctor’s advice. They actually have, in large part, when it comes to diet. Americans have been eating less and less fat and more and more grain like they have been told. And at the same time getting fatter with more cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.

Current heart disease treatment is treating the symptoms. Current cancer treatment is to treat the symptoms. Treatment for inflammation is to take pills to reduce inflammation. High cholesterol is to take pills to manually lower cholesterol (though most cholesterol numbers are fairly meaningless).

When you have an infection, an antibiotic isn’t necessarily treating the cause. The cause is why you got it in the first place. A wound, weak immune system, est. Much of the time, we do a blood transfusion and don’t bind the wound that made it necessary.

74

[quote]Andy63477 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are insinuating these are genetic traits?
[/quote]

For many desesases we can only tract external causes in a small portion of the patients. Furthermore we can see familial clustering for them as well. We have discovered many alteration in the genomic code as the cause of certain symptoms. And not all of them are spontanous mutations since spermato-/ oogenesis.

[/quote]
A person with the worst genes possible for alcoholism has 0% chance of becoming a clinical alcoholic in a world without alcohol. The same type of statement can be said about heart disease, cancer, est. Because there were large populations void of them until modernization.

You mentioned Europe and Asia. In southern Europe the medical standard is not on par with the Scandinavian states or Great Britain. Most of Asia is still part of the third world. Furthermore Japan and South Korea can’t be compared with the US. The spectrum of deseases varies too much.

[/quote]
The variation is the point. And I meant comparison with places like Great Briton.

But it’s certainly the main aim of the system. Rather an adverse effect.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are missing the point. Doctors are telling millions of people to eat less healthy.[/quote]

Ok, maybe I don’t understand your argument. (Partly because I don’t think it’s true) But please answer my question:
Hypothetically you suffer from joint pain. Would you stop lifting altogether or rather take a pain killer?

[/quote]

False dichotomy. You are a murderer, would you kill your mom or your wife?

I’ve been through joint pain and not taken steroids or NSAIDS. Nor have I stopped lifting.

75

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A person with the worst genes possible for alcoholism has 0% chance of becoming a clinical alcoholic in a world without alcohol. The same type of statement can be said about heart disease, cancer, est. Because there were large populations void of them until modernization.
[/quote]

If people didn’t have a heart in the past, this would be true. But people did have cancer in the past, there are just no recordings because it was unknown back then. (or just irrelevant due to the lack of treatment options) The few things you can still prove are for example bone cancer in bone findings. Back in the days it was accepted to die of “age”. They weren’t cut open to see what’s wrong.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The variation is the point. And I meant comparison with places like Great Briton.
[/quote]

Is the difference really that great? Do you have any data on hand? (Not calling you out on this point, just too lazy to search)

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
False dichotomy. You are a murderer, would you kill your mom or your wife?

I’ve been through joint pain and not taken steroids or NSAIDS. Nor have I stopped lifting.[/quote]

Why is it false? It’s health related and reflects pretty accurate the same situation. You are doing something bad for your health. You can stop it to improve your health (maybe this is even an advice from your doctor). But you love your lifestyle and ignore the advice from the doctor. This is how most people think and why modern medicine evolved into what it is today. The market demands for symptom treatment and not prevention.

76

[quote]Andy63477 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A person with the worst genes possible for alcoholism has 0% chance of becoming a clinical alcoholic in a world without alcohol. The same type of statement can be said about heart disease, cancer, est. Because there were large populations void of them until modernization.
[/quote]

If people didn’t have a heart in the past, this would be true. But people did have cancer in the past, there are just no recordings because it was unknown back then. (or just irrelevant due to the lack of treatment options) The few things you can still prove are for example bone cancer in bone findings. Back in the days it was accepted to die of “age”. They weren’t cut open to see what’s wrong.

[/quote]
There is evidence from isolated populations examined and treated by doctors with the knowledge of cancer. Nor is it necessary that ALL societies in the past were cancer free only that it is shown some were without medicine. And there were. They were even apparently free of things like tooth decay.

Is the difference really that great? Do you have any data on hand? (Not calling you out on this point, just too lazy to search)

[/quote]
They have worse medical care with worse outcomes for conditions and longer average life spans.

It’s false because it’s simply not a true proposition and certainly not one with only 2 possible choices.

I agree 100% with your last statement. But, it doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue that shouldn’t be considered and tallied.

77

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Skeptix I know you’re an MD by why the fuck should we listen to you over cited medical research? Are you even published? I’ve seen you make pretty bold statements in a lot of threads revolving around medicine and healthcare. You seem overtly politicized. Just an observation.[/quote]
[/quote]

Well, not as much as Mr. King, here, but I can say that the results were as horrifying.[/quote]

lol

78

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is evidence from isolated populations examined and treated by doctors with the knowledge of cancer. Nor is it necessary that ALL societies in the past were cancer free only that it is shown some were without medicine. And there were. They were even apparently free of things like tooth decay.
[/quote]

Just because some population didn’t suffer from certatin conditions doesn’t mean it was due to the lack of medicine, it could just mean that they were genetically diverse.
How old did the average person in those society mentioned by you get. There won’t be any prostate cancer, if men didn’t get older than 60 years. Many cancers are a result of a prolonged life, but mordern medicine didn’t cause them.
There has always been medicine in the past. In the 12th century muslim countries were already advanced with their medical knowledge. But please show me your sources.
I remember going to a museum class trip once as a kid and the museum guide told us, people in the stone age were dying of tooth decay. The incidence of tooth decay has risen, but the outcome is better now.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It’s false because it’s simply not a true proposition and certainly not one with only 2 possible choices.

I agree 100% with your last statement. But, it doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue that shouldn’t be considered and tallied.[/quote]

The only real solution to this would be a communist state, which limits all bad food, force people to do sports and takes over the education of the children from the parents. But freedom is a way greater good to us. So don’t blame doctors and nurses for your bad health, when you try to find your own solution and ignore their advice.

79

I’m more interested in the statistics and methods themselves than the actual medical practices. I wonder if they bothered to operationally define anything before they started throwing numbers around. Did they really die as a result of a medical mistake or did the doctor just fail to make them better which was discovered to be theoretically possible in hindsight?

Or maybe not even better, but just prolong life. If a terminal cancer patient dies a week sooner than he/she “had” to, does that count as a medical mistake?

80

[quote]csulli wrote:
I’m more interested in the statistics and methods themselves than the actual medical practices. I wonder if they bothered to operationally define anything before they started throwing numbers around. Did they really die as a result of a medical mistake or did the doctor just fail to make them better which was discovered to be theoretically possible in hindsight? Or maybe not even better, but just prolong life. If a terminal cancer patient dies a week sooner than he/she “had” to, does that count as a medical mistake?[/quote]

OK, then:

Eff Clin Pract. 2000 Nov-Dec;3(6):277-83.
How many deaths are due to medical error? Getting the number right.
Sox Jr HC, Woloshin S.
Author information

Abstract
CONTEXT:
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on medical errors created an intense public response by stating that between 44,000 and 98,000 hospitalized Americans die each year as a result of preventable medical errors.
OBJECTIVE:
To determine how well the IOM committee documented its estimates and how valid they were.
METHODS:
We reviewed the studies cited in the IOM committee’s report and related published articles.
RESULTS:
The two studies cited by the IOM committee substantiate its statement that adverse events occur in 2.9% to 3.7% of hospital admissions. Supporting data for the assertion that about half of these adverse events are preventable are less clear. In fact, the original studies cited did not define preventable adverse events, and the reliability of subjective judgments about preventability was not formally assessed. The committee’s estimate of the number of preventable deaths due to medical errors is least substantiated. The methods used to estimate the upper bound of the estimate (98,000 preventable deaths) were highly subjective, and their reliability and reproducibility are unknown, as are the methods used to estimate the lower bound (44,000 deaths).
CONCLUSION:
Using the published literature, we could not confirm the Institute of Medicine’s reported number of deaths due to medical errors. Due to the potential impact of this number on policy, it is unfortunate that the IOM’s estimate is not well substantiated.

I happen to know the first author over the last 40 years. He is NOT a pushover for the “medical establishment.”