The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/07/29/130729fa_fact_gawande
The early 1800's must have sucked. Sure many positives changes happened in that era but just the idea of having no anesthetics or antiseptics for surgery is too daunting. I remember how I had surgery when I was around six years old and I know for sure I would have been bawling if it wasn't for anesthetics. I also owe the success of the surgery to the practice of antiseptics.
In a sense, William Morton is my hero. He has saved me from pain, in many instances, through his invention. His creation of anesthetics have helped many people deviate from pain and be able to take a nice nap while being operated on. Without anesthetics, one could see how doctors would have to have an even more stressful job than doctors now. Today's doctors could work steadily and surely while the old doctors would have to work quickly and effectively. The pressure on the latter outweighs the pressure on the former.
Joseph Lister would also be considered my hero. His technique of using clean, new surgical tools saves many more people than of when surgeons used old surgical tools. In the 1800's, one of the leading causes of the death of women was caused by childbirth. After giving birth to a child, the mother would usually die because of the unsanitary tools were used for birth. This is one example of how antiseptics changed the surgical process better. Another example is since new, clean tools cannot transmit diseases. When doctors would reuse a surgical tool, there was the huge possibility that the blood would stick to the tool and soon become transferred to a person. this transferring of a blood could be lethal and possibility the difference between the patient's death or survival.
Matthew..I was a little disappointed with this blog...you did so much better on your previous one. Was this subject a little harder for you to comment on?
ReplyDeleteFirst off, your blog was very informal. A little bit is acceptable, but I did not think it was a smart move to begin your blog with "....must have sucked." It makes the reader take what you have to say less seriously.
Also, you provided commentary on the useful purposes of anesthetics and antiseptics; however, you lacked commentary on the main aspect of the article.
How do some ideas spread quickly and others not as quickly?
You could have told us your thoughts on why such things happen, and maybe even how we can speed up the spread of less accepted/unknown ideas. Your blog was alright. You could have done better, but I feel like this one is sufficient.
I would have liked to see another blog like the one you wrote last time, though :) Try to build your subsequent blogs off of that one and continue to provide more in-depth commentary.