Hacker News Reader

Comment by iancmceachern | Hacker News Reader

This is definitely a thing, they do all kinds of things like counting things before and after the surgery to avoid it.

Fifteen or 20 years ago I remember seeing something about using bar codes to "check out" and "check in" all the tools so nothing was unaccounted for. Unclear if that system's been widely adopted, though.

They do something like that in aircraft manufacturing - every tool has a dedicated spot in the toolbox and a job can't be signed off unless all the tools are back in the toolbox. Bolts, nuts, and other parts/debris are a different story though... there's horror stories from that as well, especially recently from one of Boeing's facilities implicated in the string of manufacturing and maintenance related incidents Boeing had in the last couple years.

"Dottore, still counting ? Hurry up, there are 10 more patients avaiting surgery today. The profit of the company and your bonus are in danger. Hurry up"

You could frame it a different way; what level of risk would be acceptable vs. the reduction in cost/time/use of resources. If you're 10% faster for 0.1% risk, is that a better outcome for society?

You could, but the willingness to frame it that way at a local decision-making level causes problems for global optimization. It's perfectly fine for a surgeon to triage patients and actions. It's much less fine for a hospital administrator to decide they can get away with less staff because the increase in risk isn't _that_ high (maybe only a couple extra deaths per year). Perhaps it's fine to make that tradeoff, but the blatant conflict of interest and history of people doing worse things for less money suggests it should at least have oversight.

How would you feel being the 0.1% for the betterment of society? Your sacrifice is appreciated!

We are all already part of this conversation, all the time, because resources are finite

The flip side is "sorry, we didn't have enough surgeons available right now so we have to triage you", or, "sorry you can't afford the bill"

I'm sure in this particular situation the numbers benefit "don't leave surgery debris in the patient" but the more general point remains, there is some set of numbers (likely implausible) where it would flip the other way

Hate it all you want but these decisions of how much percentage death is legally allowed happens whether you like it or not. Otherwise we'd have no cars on the road, no planes in the sky, no boats, no swimming, no cycling, etc

10% faster could easily be more than 0.1% better for society. Less risk for infection or other problems, more people can be seen etc. Its entirely about weighing pros and cons and you are being ignorant by assuming otherwise.

Society isn't a shareholder

Reply on news.ycombinator.com