Doctors Claim Suspended Animation Success 390
Philoneist.com writes to tell us the Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that US doctors have developed a process to induce hypothermia in trauma patients, shutting down their bodily functions for up to three hours. The process has been proven about 90% effective in trials with pigs and now the doctors would like the go ahead to test it on humans who would "probably die" under normal care.
What about going to heaven? (Score:4, Funny)
I expect that it only works on pigs, because they are dirty animals and don't have a soul.
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, my answer to his problem is this: What about people who go into hypothermia in normal situations?
Or people who are clinically dead but are then resuscitated?
Or how about this: If the soul goes to heaven immediately at the time of death, then what's the point of a Christian burial? Why don't we just cremate everybody and save valuable real estate for mad scientists and their ilk?
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
In general life we always see our body as a thing, the "you" of today is the "you" of tommorow and the "you" of the past, you look in the mirror and say: he! that's me, you look in a picture album and watch your baby pictures and say: he! that's me too!
but in reality your body is more like a progress. every cell in your body is replaced over and over again in your life. from a biological perspective the body you where born with is not the same (as in: not compose
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:3, Funny)
A series of save states that people get to pick from when they're restored would make more sense (if you believe in literal physical resurrection). Otherwise, he'd end up with billions of aged people barely able to walk.
Transendence always made more sense to me.
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:5, Funny)
i told her i saved at the checkpoint a couple minutes back
and can reload from there if i die
she was confused
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2, Insightful)
That was the plot of 'John Doe'.. (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the shows creators revealed in some TV guide or other that had the show got an extra series or two, it would have been revealed that John was in fact the result of an experiment by a mysterious group to gain all the knowledge of the universe. They believed that such knowledge was revealed at the moment of death, hence John was killed and brought back again. But the series got axed before any of that could really be explored.
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2, Funny)
What about people who are clinically dead and cannot be resuscitated?
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:5, Insightful)
I like to ask other Christians:
Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days (they're so adamant at trying to control non-believers definitions of "life").
Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.
Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.
The answers to all three questions are basically: we shouldn't, we won't, and we will never push our views on non-believers. The Bible is pretty strict about holding other believers accountable for their actions, but we should be leaving the rest of the world alone.
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
Why not? We're talking about when we schedule parties, not the timing of some scientific experiment.
You're confusing cause an effect. A person says they are dead because they have determined that they have ascended to Heaven (or descended to Hell).
There are more or
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
Normally the response is "God gave us freewill so we can make up our own minds"
To which i normally reply "So does that mean in heaven we don't have any freewill"
watching "The Root of All Evil" has made me start wondering why I stopped asking that question, and why I've push my believes (I'm an atheist) to one side so not to offend people
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
Before I found my religious beliefs, this was a very tough question that I often asked believers.
I've found the best answer I can give is that once I'm in heaven, the veil of uncertainty will be lifted. Once I can see the consequences of an action, there would be no need to take any direction but the one with positive consequences. Does that mean free will in gone? Not really, but why make bad decisions when the good one is
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
I believe that He has -- its called heaven. I don't really believe in the artist's form of heaven and hell. To me, heaven would be a temporary place to hang out in the love of God until the earth is returned to us -- giving us that perfect body and perfect knowledge. Hell is not fire and brimstone and pain for eternity, I believe it is just eternity without the light of God's love.
Of course, my beliefs are very different than typical Christians believe. I think the a
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2, Informative)
As a previously agnostic geek, my believer response has never been perfect. I'm always looking for a good way to reply to that comment without coming off as the typical Bible-thumping religious right wacko that I'm friends with
The answer is everyone can do it, and it is the easiest thing in the world to do. I firmly believe that the only guaranteed way to feeling God's love for every is basically to hear the Gospel, believe in it, repent as commanded and confess that you believe in
Re: What about going to heaven? (Score:3, Funny)
Look at His bumper stickers, to see whether it's one of those "no ass, no grass, no ride" situations.
Re: What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
> Before I found my religious beliefs, this was a very tough question that I often asked believers. I've found the best answer I can give is that once I'm in heaven, the veil of uncertainty will be lifted.
How come that didn't work for Adam and Eve?
> Once I can see the consequences of an action, there would be no need to take any direction but the one with positive consequences. Does that mean free will in gone?
Re: What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
How come that didn't work for Adam and Eve?
Adam and Eve were created in God's image but with the intent to see how Man would be outside of heaven -- away from God. God wanted to see if Man would still be able to live without His direct love (or as I like to see it, feeling his light and his warmth directly). Of course He knew the answer, which led us down the
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:5, Insightful)
People who say that aren't really thinking about that God supposedly created *everything*-- not just the Earth and its creatures, but dark and light, up and down, good and evil, happiness, laughter, spleens, hydrogen, etc. Why not just create the universe so that there is no bad, no evil, nothing to ever be upsetting?
If one responds to this suggestion by saying that this would make the world seem dull or pointless... well... God didn't have to create dullness or boredom or pointlessness either. If one responds by saying that God only brings the righteous to Heaven and the Earth is our proving ground... why did God have to make wickedness and bad people? Why not make everything wonderful for everyone all the time forever? Everyone would be worthy of heaven... or heck, put everyone on there to begin with!
I can't think of any reason that God would make the universe where bad things could happen to anyone, unless (A) he made mistakes and didn't intend for the bad things, (B) he actually wants to screw with us/watch some of us fail, or (C) he's not the only one in control.
In any of these cases, God wouldn't be what the Bible suggests, and also he wouldn't really be reliable to come through on this whole heaven thing.
It's not that I don't want to believe in God... I'd love to know that there is a place I go after I die that is even better than living. But it makes no sense that God created a universe like this. It makes no sense that people like murderers and adulterers and rapists make God sad and angry... if he didn't think up these concepts and incorporate them into his universe, they wouldn't even be there.
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet I can see how "bad things happening" would be directly a reaction to choices made through free will. I can't think of any bad things happening in my life that weren't directly because of choices I made, even if it seems like a cop out. My belief that our veil of uncertainty will be lifted after death leads me to believe that in the afterlife, we'll know what decisions not to make (eve if they aren't sinful decisions).
Why not make everything wonderful for everyone all the time forever? Everyone would be worthy of heaven... or heck, put everyone on there to begin with!
Sure, until you understand that God is a jealous God. If we want to worship idols and other gods, we're free to. He never promised not to test us.
It makes no sense that people like murderers and adulterers and rapists make God sad and angry... if he didn't think up these concepts and incorporate them into his universe, they wouldn't even be there.
You're right, but it is not something that I could explain. People who know me know that I am the most logical person you'll ever meet. The non-believers can't believe that I believe in God. The believers can't believe that I'm a Christ follower, either, as I don't follow the same path they do.
My life changed when I accepted Jesus in one big way -- I felt I knew why I was here and it didn't conflict one bit with my login and liberty beliefs.
I guess that's the big problem with "pushing" religion, though. No one pushed it on me, and to say that God led me towards salvation in everything I was reading and researching makes sense after the fact, but would I have seen it that way before the fact?
As for rape and murder and robbery, I don't know if I'd feel so certain that I couldn't commit these acts before I believe in God and the Word. I know that I'm utterly disgusted by the thought of any of the above now, but I can't recall how I felt before hand.
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not from new orleans are you?
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
It's not always possible to know the date of conception. Birth is when a new life enters into our world, not when life itself began but when that life began functioning on its own. We celebrate a lot of things that the Bible doesn't say we should celebrate (but also doesn't say we shouldn't).
Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.
Sor
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
I offer my testimony to the (possibly) unsaved every day, but I don't push it through fear or retribution speeches. You know when someone is open to receiving the Gospel and
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
I'm not a Christian, but here's an answer: we can be certain when the birthday was. We may not always be sure when the conception date was.
So we have a choice: A. most people pick an arbitrary day close to the day of their conception or B. Eveyone uses their birthday.
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:5, Funny)
I think because singing "Happy Fuckday to You" just isn't very family-friendly, when you get down to it.
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in puritanical societies is sex a family un-friendly thing. Sex is the reason we have families. Without it, there's no offspring, and no families. It's ironic that people will adopt such deep close-mindedness that the very thing that is reponsible for their existence is deemed dirty and unworthy of being discussed in a family.
It's that mind-bending lack clear thinking that makes me an x-xtian.
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
Because most of the people celebrating were most probably not witnessing conception. At least I'd hope so. Parties are frequently on a day many people on it can relate to.
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
Er, if they have no brain activity, they're dead. End of story. Read up on the definition of brain death. Perhaps you meant persistent vegetative state?
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, but on the other hand I have Christian coalition groups all around me badmouthing my beliefs when they say that "life begins at conception" at whatever pro-life rally they're at. If it does, celebrate that day. It is a better use of your time than trying to control those that God never intended believers to control.
Who is to say the moment death occurs.
True. This is why I'm consistently reminding those in my congregation to leave their wishes in writing with their family so that the family knows what to do if the worst happens (vegetative state, etc). In the end, and in my opinion, only God knows when you're heading for heaven. Why should anyone choose by the person who is dying? I feel the same way about making the choice to end one's life.
It just re-stresses the importance of a living will or health care directive.
Bingo. This is how I live -- trying to follow God's Word while understanding that we live with free will. Make it easy on your family and friends and leave your testament for what will happen in any situation.
I'd love to find a generic living will/directive that is focused on the choices Christ followers find hard to do. Anyone have a link?
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:3, Funny)
Which is the more dramatic occasion?
Well, coming from an x-Christian position, I would say that the moment the soul enters the body (conception) is vastly more dramatic and important than the moment that body passes through a vagina. What could be more important than that moment that God gives you your soul? The date of birth is pretty much an irrelevant incedent - or it
Re:Pragmatism (Score:2)
If you are a believer, the proper answer is that God already answered the miracle question: Matthew 4:7 [newlivingtranslation.com]
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
There was an article which mentioned that scientists had figured out where the highest levels of consciousness in the brain was. Basically, this was the one region of the brain (central front left lobe) where if this area was damaged, the person would never regain consciousness, regardless of any stimulus given.
At normal body-temperature, brain cells can only last 2-3 minutes without an oxygen supply, before starting to incur damage. But if they are cooled down (as with hypothermia), they can last much long
Re: What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
FWIW, doctrine varies from sect to sect. I was raised in a denomination that taught that judgement is deferred until the end of time, so in that case it doesn't seem as though resuscitation would be theologically pro
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
Or people who are clinically dead but are then resuscitated?
There have been a great many (necessarily) subjective reports from people who have been well on their way to dead and then resuscitated. Most involving bright light and seeing deceased loved ones, a few of just wandering about out of body (a number combining those two) and a few reports of hellish experiances.
Atheists ascribe that to the strange half functioning of a brain shutting down, those with spiritual beliefs naturally see it as confir
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
I'll throw this one in as food for thought. I'd do more but I gotta split right now. From Ecclesiastes 9.
4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
Think about it : without proper medication, some illnesses are 100% fatal (rabies [hydrophobia]) ; so if you let them evoluate, you end up in heaven or hell. But there's a cure - should we stop using it because it delays our potential face to face with destiny ?
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
There was a horror movie based on this concept... (Score:2)
I remember back in the 80s seeing a movie on TV (so the movie was probably made in the 70s) about a guy who was put in suspended animation because he has some incurable disease. Years later, there was some accident/malfunction that caused his chamber to revive him unexpectedly. Doctors were able to bring him back without a hitch or so they thought. H
The movie was directed by Wes Craven and was calle (Score:2)
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
When they revive you your soul returns to the body, thus depriving God of his Keanu Reeves figure and ensuring the armies of Satan will crush the Mormons in heaven.
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2, Interesting)
ehehehe! Or not.
Pigs are actually very clean. Sure, they like to roll in the mud to stay cool (and they tend to get sunburns quite easily, like me), and to keep bugs under control (I don't need that, not yet.)
If they'd be given a choice, I'm sure they'd rather hang out in green fields and pastures and run naked in the woods (I know I would!
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about going to heaven? (Score:2)
Not quite suspended (Score:5, Informative)
It's too bad that the NIH budget was cut this year (effectively below the rate of inflation) by the Whitehouse and further cut by Congress who, while managing to take care of their own salaries before going on vacation, could not work in the NIH budget to their schedule. As a result, many labs here in the US this year have had to slash this years budget by 12-20% which has a dramatic effect on the success of bioscience research such as this suspended animation work.
Forget freezing me! Phencyclidine! (Score:2)
Re:Not quite suspended (Score:4, Informative)
Look at these budget numbers here [aaas.org].
While I have sympathy for the NIH, their overall budget was only cut by about 1%. Adding in inflation, that's about 4% or so in real dollars. Now, that's sucky, but NIH's budget has doubled over the last 10 years or so, in real dollars, and is around $25B/yr. If a 1% cut makes labs cut their budgets by 12-20%, those labs are either unlucky or poorly run.
By contrast, the NSF, which supports much of the rest of basic science research in the US, has had real $ cuts for the last several years, and has remained largely flat in real $ during the NIH doubling. NSF's total annual budget is about $5B/yr, or, in more interesting units, about three weeks of the Iraq conflict. So, as a physical scientist, forgive me if I don't get tooooo upset about NIH's situation.
Re:Not quite suspended (Score:2)
The 12-20% cuts were across the board as a result of Congress not deciding on a budget for this year as are a consequence of the NIH not knowing where the pay lines are going to be. Basically, the NIH went to everyone's grants and said "we are taking 20% off the top unless you can justify a less dramatic cut." We took a small hit, but many, many labs took a big hit. The problem with this is that most labs plan
Re:Not quite suspended (Score:2)
I know very little biology or anything medical (having never taken anything beyond high school biology), but is this why it works as opposed to cryogenics? The fact that it's not quite frozen? IIRC, the reason cryogenics doesn't work, is that the freezing actually ruptures the cell membranes, am I correct?
Also, is the fact that the metabolic rate drops
Re:Not quite suspended (Score:4, Informative)
You are partially correct. Cell membrane rupture due to ice crystal formation is certainly a huge part of the problem. However, it should be noted that there are organisms that manage to overcome this by including within their circulating fluids, an "anti-freeze" compound of sorts. Deep ocean cod are one type of organism that does this. The other issues have to do with genetic and protein integrity. Small molecules tolerate freezing quite well, but the larger a molecule is (peptide, protein), the more sensitive it is to large temperature alterations and freezing. If too much damage is done to proteins and/or genes, cells induce a termination sequence that essentially causes them to commit suicide (apoptosis).
Also, is the fact that the metabolic rate drops so much for every 10 degrees C the reason why the brain can "survive" without oxygen being pumped through via blood? If the metabolic rate slows, does it lessen the need for the brain to take in as much oxygen, and thus allowing it to be able to return to normal after this kind of procedure?
This is certainly a major part of why it is thought this technology works. It turns out that many metabolic processes have a cost. Oxygen is actually a little dangerous and the higher the partial pressure of oxygen, the greater the chance of damage by free radicals. Those pesky free electrons can cause all sorts of havoc and that is exactly why people should be careful with those air cleaners that "clean" through ozone generation. If oxygen is toxic, ozone is even more so.
Sorry if I sound stupid, but like I said, this stuff is beyond my knowledge, hence the questions.
Actually, the very act of asking questions demonstrates a degree of intelligence that is sorely lacking among far too many folks so, there are rarely any stupid questions and I am most happy to share any information I have here on Slashdot.
Re:Not quite suspended (Score:2)
Proton pumps are also "pumps" made of proteins. By saying protein pumps, I am referring to the multitude of membrane bound proteins that assist in the transport of various ions, molecules etc...etc...etc....
I was hoping for a bit longer... (Score:2)
Next stop, cryogenics.
Re:I was hoping for a bit longer... (Score:2)
Re:I was hoping for a bit longer... (Score:2)
Next stop, cryogenics.
The planets in our solar system are already reachable, if only we want to put the resources into it. We've had humans up on space stations for periods as long as it takes to reach Mars at least. Mars would be the prime candidate and that's about 8 months away. The other planets are a bit further and humans couldn't do much on them, so whoever was going would be pioneers who don't mind spending some years of their life getting
90% effective? (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory Link (Score:2)
Major hurdle to overcome (Score:2, Interesting)
If they can get past this, they may be on to something here- shame research funding for this was cut.
Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how many times you can undergo this treatment and still be fine. Perhaps one could undergo it several times a night thus lenghtening the time you could potentially live by maybe 30 or 40%. I for one would welcome our new 160 year old overlords.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 10%? (Score:5, Interesting)
Too bad they couldn't figure out a way to do it safely yet, we could use for manned long-duration space travel or just to stick around and get defrosted, Futurama-style.
I wonder how the world will look like in, say, 100 years, but do have the patience (or the stamina) to wait. Maybe Bin Laden will finally have been caught? Maybe Brazil becomes the next world superpower? Who knows?
Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 (Score:2)
These process is recommended for people who would die without treatment. It is intended to keep them alive long enough to get them to a trauma center. Lots of people die from accidents, strokes, heart attacks and the like who could be saved if they could be brought to a level I trauma center fast enough.
So given the choice of 100% or a 10% death rate before you even reach the hospital, which would you choose?
what about the remaining 10%? (Score:2)
The other 90% will have to wait.
90% effectiveness is good enough (Score:2)
As to space travel, and assuming the method can be scaled up quite a bit longer than a few hours... I hate to say it, but 90% is still good enough. There are people out there willing to take the risk for exploration, or better yet colonization. Put 10 people in stasis for a 50 year trip to [Whichever] Centauri. One of them won't wake up when they get there, and
Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 (Score:2)
Or, like in Gene Wolfe's "New Sun" novels, dumped out unceremoniously by treasure hunters, no differently from the way mummies have been treated.
Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 (Score:5, Informative)
Even assuming the article weren't talking about terminal patients, death from hypothermia is one of the least horrible ways to go. Your higher brain functions stop working, you become very calm and stop feeling cold, and then you go to sleep.
Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 (Score:4, Interesting)
When we go to the other end, I vaguely remember feeling warm and comfortable but strangely unable to move. I also remember being surrounded by clearly panicking instructors who were bellowing at me not to go to sleep while they manhandled me to the hospital. It was very surreal - like you're watching yourself from outside with a mixture of detachment and fascination. Mountaineering tales I've read describe the same thing: a sort of pleasant warmth even while you're looking at your frostbitten fingers and a very strong desire to take a "short nap."
Death by freezing would have felt pleasant I'm sure. On the other hand, being warmed up slowly was the worst experience I've ever had bar none because then you start feeling how cold you really are - and the feeling continues for days. I can't remember what my core temperature had dropped to but it was dangerously low.
Re:90% effectiveness... what about the remaining 1 (Score:3, Interesting)
I only had frost nip in one of my toes, but the sensitivity-to-cold thing was definitely a hassle. I think it was at least a week before my sense of temperature was back to normal.
Obligatory Flatliners Quotes (Score:2, Funny)
Flatliners (1990)
Nelson Wright: Hello, I'm nice, he's nice, we're both fucking lunatics. Can I come in, please?
David Labraccio: He said
Nelson Wright: Thank you.
Nelson Wright: Today is a good day to die
Nelson Wright: You bring the equipment, I'll bring my balls.
Joe Hurley: I don't know. Not thinking about the past or the future. I don't know it's difficult to explain, maybe impossible.
David Labraccio: Yeah, dying is quite that way.
Randy Steck
Congratulations! (Score:3, Funny)
Saving brain cells (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder how this new technique might improve the own of saving the brain from destruction after an heart attack, as if no
Gotta Love Indirection (Score:5, Funny)
Of the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
Reporting a story in the New Scientist (England)
Of a bunch of scientists at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (US)
Can we add a few more levels of indirection here??
Re:Gotta Love Indirection (Score:2)
Re:Gotta Love Indirection (Score:2)
Re:Gotta Love Indirection (Score:2)
Well, you could try posting the full article in a comment, in case it gets slashdotted...
Drowning people in icy waters... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sifting through all of the Google hits from my search terms now.
Re:Drowning people in icy waters... (Score:2, Informative)
"They ain't dead until they are warm and dead"
Especially with children falling through the ice.
Re:Drowning people in icy waters... (Score:2)
I recall a documentary on television- I think it was on the Discovery Channel- about how they are considering these kind of things in emergency medicine. The documentary claimed that doctors were debating how emergency response medical teams immediately give intravenous fluids and blood, because it possibly caused blood clots to break by raising blood pressure, and injuries that would normally start to heal with the clotting process would end up causing more loss of blood and eventually death.
They had sta
Re:Drowning people in icy waters... (Score:2)
Re:Drowning people in icy waters... (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
I have a business idea (Score:5, Funny)
But they'll have to make sure the money is in the right place, with enough interest to pull them ahead of the rest of the country/world, else its all in vain. Therefore we provide long-term financial services too.
I suggest customers buy lots of real-estate around cities with major natural resources and good weather. Hopefully they wont wake right after WWIII to realize their lands cost nothing.
Invesing in gold is not a bad idea either for the long term.
My freezer can take 2 persons. Who wants to be first??
More interesting headline would have been: (Score:4, Funny)
CTRL-Z your body and jump ahead in time (Score:3, Interesting)
MItochondria (Score:2, Informative)
I've been doing this for years (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How nice (Score:4, Insightful)
The purpose of their proposed clinical trials is to give patients who will almost surely die with conventional methods some limited hope with this "experiment". Yes, perhaps it only has a 90% success rate, but modern medicine has no effective techniques to handle catastrophic blood loss, such as in car accidents and other traumas.
The purpose of asking for these medical trials is to bring the chance of survival up from maybe 5% with conventional techniques to something higher.
Re:How nice (Score:2)
Now 90% of all these people make it to the facility alive. This is good.
However, for the 10% that don't.... fully half of those would have in fact sta
Re:How nice (Score:2)
The probability of success would indeed be likely much higher on its own if the procedure was solely suspending and re-animating. That is not the procedure, however.
The procedure they are testing is within the context of existing, severe damage to the body. There is no way to expect a procedure to work 99.9% of times when already (say) 25% of the patients are going to die anyway.
Re:How nice (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How nice (Score:2)
Yes, there is. If a doctor believes that a medical procedure is necessary to save a patient's life, he may perform it in ER when he might otherwise need family consent. I think the criterion is a consensus among some number of other doctors and department heads.
Or maybe I just saw that on "ER"
Re:How nice (Score:2)
I'm curious as to how they plan to administer the technique as an experiment. Are designated doctors going to hand a detailed release form to incoming ER patients who are bleeding to death? I wounder if it would even be realistic to seek permission of relatives in the short and urgent time periods involved.
They won't really need a release form since the proposal is to do this on patients who have ALREADY blead out and are now flatline (that is, as good as dead). Essentially, rather than waiting a minute
Re:How nice (Score:2)
if the chance that you survive a gun bleeding is 15% and this method gives you 65%, then surely it is worth the risk.
but I agree that they should continue to work on it.
Such as.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If I was about to die... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't that... (Score:2)
but I would think trauma victims need all the energy they can get to survive.
In cases of massive injuries, the patient may be bleeding out faster than replacement blood can be pumped in. This procedure could give a surgeon long enough to repair the damage (at least enough to stop the bleeding).
Re:Neuroprotection (Score:4, Interesting)
However, there is some evidence of benefit in non traumatic head injuries (eg post cardiac arrest) where cooling does provide improved neurological outcomes.
Hypothermic circulatory arrest is used routinely for certain types of aortic arch surgey where it would be difficult to maintain cerebral circulation (eg for aortic arch dissection) using conventional techniques.
If you cool someone down to something in the range of 15-24 degrees you can get 20-40 minutes of cardiac arrest without major consequence.
The articles seem to present this as something new - its really more an extension of a known technology into trauma surgery.
I suspect that the biggest problem with this level of extreme hypothermia is that blood coagulation essentially fails at these temperatures - so in the case of trauma, they are going to have to sow everything up and even then nothing will seal over - which leads to the need for massive transfusion requirements as everthing bruises up extremely badly. Massive transfusions (> 10 units of blood) are likely in themselves to cause multi organ failure, and a downward spiral of death.
This is just a technical hurdle to be overcome, but at the moment the odds of surviving this will be very low - so low that I don't think you would do it for anyone who has even a slight chance of surviving the injuries by conventional measures.
My 2c worth
Michael