It's about as reasonable as doing surgery without an anesthesiologist.
The logic is about what is absolutely necessary to achieve what you try to achieve
And without anaesthesiologist there is no surgery at all either for 90% of the cases.
Id rather have a nurse have a go than to do this awake without sedatives, without anyone monitoring me. Just think about this for a second.
A surgeon can perform a procedure on a living patient or a cadaver and whichever is the case, it does not affect their work. An anaesthesiologist is responsible for ensuring the former does not become the latter, excluding catastrophic surgical procedure failure.
> Remove the anæsthetist, and procedure forbids you from continuing. Remove the surgeon, and it’s impossible to continue.
The opposite is the case (see above).
Remove the anæsthetist, and procedure forbids you from continuing. Remove the surgeon, and it’s impossible to continue. … Or remove the patient. I guess the patient is the most important person there after all! (Actually, that does a pretty good job of showing how the entire notion of “most important” may not make sense.)