this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
573 points (98.8% liked)
Not The Onion
12554 readers
1872 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My understanding is that the drill is fixtured in position in procedures as delicate as this, so that it really can't move and drill anywhere except where it needs to. Likely why Dad thought (wrongly) that it was harmless.
Surgical tech here!
...I got bad news.
In craniotomies, once the skull is exposed the doc will use basically a handheld dremel to punch a few holes, then connect the dots with a side-biting bit.
Could she have done the initial drill in such a manner? Mounted drill etc
I've never seen a mounted drill in the OR (though I imagine there is an option for it - bed-mounted instruments and equipment are pretty common).
Here's a video that kinda shows how craniotomies go - this is just an animation, nothing gory. The drill in the animation is different from the onces I've seen used for cranis (pistol-shaped vs just a cylinder like the one I linked earlier) but either way, it's very much a hand-held device.
Even micro surgery like when we're drilling in a tympanoplasty or cochlear implant placement - literally done under a microscope - it's still just a little dremmel looking thing.
I just wanted to be sure to say thank you for your thoughtful replies with sources, I have learned some things and enjoyed it.
Worked in orthopedic surgery for years (just a big nerd, not a surgeon) and it's always strange seeing other surgical disciplines talking about the equipment used in a procedure. Like, ya'll don't just use a Dewalt in a sterile bag? Really?
They like to pretend it's more than that, but anything that requires power really just boils down to carpentry that bleeds.
Well not only has Hollywood lied to us again, I now feel 10 times more horrified about this story.
I was thinking this as well. Headlines, no matter the story, are frequently meant to rage bait people.
Is it pretty messed up? Yeah, I'd say that meets the definition. Was the guy actually in danger? Idk? I'm not a rocket scientist.
Edit: Side note, I just saw a "cranial fixation system" for the first time where I work about a week ago. I do not work in a medical field so this is just a really strange coincidence. I won't be elaborating on my career.
He was receiving emergency brain surgery.
It likely was harmless, since the article infers ther surgery went well. It was just inappropriate and looks bad. When suing in the US you have to show damages. The patient may have a hard time winning his case.
Which part of the US 🇺🇸 is Austria 🇦🇹 in?
Missouri. The capital is Vienna.
I wasn't inferring this was a US case. But a lot of law isn't very dissimilar in most countries, so just taking a guess I would assume you'd have to show damages in Austria, as well.
I think that's an entirely wrong starting point. Operating on a person without their informed consent is bodily harm. You have to prove the patient agreed. (Ignoring for the moment situations where they can't.)
The patient never agreed to a surgery in part performed by that kid, but to one performed entirely by trained professionals.
But there was no bodily harm. If the procedure had failed or an infection happened there would be, but from the light bit of info in the article, the procedure was successful. No damages incurred due to the 13 year olds involvement.
Opening up the patient - by itself - is bodily harm ("Körperverletzung") already. It is only legal in the context of consent, and that consent only carries any weight if it was informed. Even if nothing goes wrong and no damages occur the lack of informed consent makes the act illegal.
This is probably https://gesetzefinden.at/bundesrecht/bundesgesetze/stgb/para-83 by the child, who is too young to be tried or punished, but should be https://gesetzefinden.at/bundesrecht/bundesgesetze/stgb/para-282 by the mother.
Maybe https://gesetzefinden.at/bundesrecht/bundesgesetze/stgb/para-110 is also relevant, if we assume the deficient consent also has consequences for the other medical treatment that occured from other people in the room.
Life saving emergencies constitute implied consent. It doesn't actually need to be given beforehand if it's to save/help someone who can't currently make a choice.
Okay, sorry, I didn't realize this wasn't a scheduled surgery, I only read the German article from the comments.
Yes there is the concept of implied consent for those cases where a patient can't make his will known. But in those cases you have to act along the presumed will of the patient. That will of the patient would regularily be presumed to contain the lege artis, at least in a setting where the hospital has been reached already and the option was available. So that again precludes untrained people participating in my view.