Re:The macabre fate of ‘beating heart corpses’
by woliveirajr on Sunday November 13, 2016 @03:13PM
(#12945372)
Mistake: one decision, among those which were adequate to the case, was given and another one, not included in the adequate group, was followed.
Choosing one and not another, all reasonable, isn't a mistake. Having a know side effect that can't be predicted to a specific patient isn't a mistake.
Re:The macabre fate of ‘beating heart corpses’
by cortesoft on Friday November 11, 2016 @08:38PM
(#12936051)
I think the definition of mistake should be "was there a different course of action that could have been taken that would have kept the person alive?"
Not all mistakes are avoidable - sometimes there is no way to know if something is a mistake until after you do it, but it is still a mistake.
Re:The macabre fate of ‘beating heart corpses’
by DasIch on Saturday November 12, 2016 @03:47AM
(#12937145)
If there are two courses of action both with potentially deadly side effects, your definition would consider it a mistake taking one and having the patient die due to that side effect.
I think mistake should imply doing something even though a better option was available and known (or should've been known) to the person making the decision.
It doesn't really change your point, but just an FYI the studies that try to measure deaths caused by medical mistakes often can be dubious due to their definition of "mistake". For example, there are clear mistakes like mixing up patients and giving the wrong treatment to the wrong patient. But many mistakes are more questionable like if a patient is given the correct treatment but they are one of the few to experience a known but deadly side effect. The hospital is still the one to have directly caused the death, but it would be hard to argue they should have acted differently. The number of deaths can vary widely depending on how events like the latter example are categorized.