I suddenly remembered an old medical tale (at one time it was presented as if it were true). One doctor-therapist had an ingrown toenail on the big toe of his left foot and he prevented him immensely. He asked colleagues of surgeons to remove that nail, but asked for this procedure under anesthesia, because he was afraid of local anesthesia. Well, as a colleague does not help - agreed to a small bribe. They did not formally register the formal registration and decided to do everything quickly in the dressing room under the sombrevin (there was such a great Hungarian drug for a super short cut, but it was rumored that it was very often causing allergies). But, as is known, it is considered the last business for us to treat our colleagues, because everything they have (with us, I mean) is a whirlwind. That doctor also happened in anesthesia, not just anaphylaxis, but a cardiac arrest, a clinical death, that is. His brave guys began to revive, and I must say, quite successfully. And in those days it was believed that closed massage is ineffective, if ribs do not crack, well, they tried "for their own" - several edges were broken. They were taken to the intensive care unit for mechanical ventilation (artificial respiration, who does not know). The wheelchair, as it should be in our hospitals, was on three wheels instead of the four put her from birth, and they danced a typical quadrille. Essno along the way the patient was dropped, having broken his thigh, the same - left. In the intensive care unit, as it should be intubated, transferred to the ventilator, they placed a skeletal traction on the thigh (well, all the gadgets). And then that wretch-poor guy wakes up and what does he see? And he sees his own, tintering from under the blanket finger, and on it - a bluish ingrown nail. Why am I doing this?
Just as on Friday, a surgeon called from a local hospital called me and asked for help: the mother of a 13-year-old boy asked her to ask her to remove atheroma (such a benign neoplasm due to a blockage of the sebaceous gland), located immediately under the eye , just below the century. The atheroma is about a centimeter in diameter, it is suppressed, but slightly inflamed. Mom categorically refuses to take his son to the regional hospital - there is a paid operation (only we can still do it for free). In short, at five, all the fun will cost, or even more). Meanwhile, we have the recommendations of regional oncologists categorically "not to remove any neoplasms" on the ground, especially on the face, since there is no pathomorphological (histological) laboratory. In addition, my mother insists on removing the atheroma under anesthesia (general anesthesia), because "the child is nervous and does not tolerate local anesthesia."
Here it would seem - a trifling matter, and the eaten egg is not worth it. And how many questions at once!?:
And what if it is not an atheroma?
And if you fester and open it?
And suddenly a child (blablabla) "intolerance to hypoxia" or anesthesia? - Anaphylaxis?
And the scar will remain? And it will stay.
And the surgeon "promazhet and a scalpel in an eye will get"? Surgeon, by the way, a girl - first-year. Etc. etc.
Informed voluntary consent of all these issues does not take into account, and is not de jure an official document and can not be a surgeon's protection before a court. Yes, and that's not the point. And if something suddenly happens, you can not forgive yourself for a century. And we must do it. We already agreed for tomorrow. And how to be?
hiveblocks