Malpractice law is complex and time consuming. Determining it to be a cause or contributor to a death isn't quite like going "yup, that's pneumonia". Studies are what we use to estimate it, and this one was a big outlier.

Causality itself is a complex philosophical topic. I agree it probably can’t be established.

That’s why death reportings tend to use “died with X”. I understand that there is a sensitivity to ascribe liability or fault. But if someone dies in recovery from a surgery, or worse under anesthesia, that seems like something that could be identified and reported.

> But if someone dies to recovery form a surgery, or worse from anesthesia, that seems like something that could be identified and reported.

We do (for example: https://www.cdc.gov/healthcare-associated-infections/index.h...), but there's significant difference between "malpractice" and "died due to surgical/anesthesia complications". Perfectly administered anesthesia is still risky, which is why we don't give it for, say, mole removal.

Probably because you could die from medical malpractice tomorrow but the final determination will take many years to resolve in the courts. Is there much value in going back and revising a number of deaths from 2019? Maybe. If the numbers are large enough or reflect a pattern that could be corrected/improved. More likely is there is nothing actionable there.

The action would be reducing the dangers of medical procedures and individuals feeling empowered to advocate for their safety and treatment.

> individuals feeling empowered to advocate for their safety and treatment

To butcher a Rick & Morty quote, "that just sounds like malpractice with extra steps".

Malpractice is when a sophisticated person navigates the legal system and receives a settlement.

What im wondering is why the general public doesn’t know that surgery isn’t an absolute good.