Re:Code Like a Surgeon
by johncolanduoni on Saturday October 25, 2025 @04:41AM
(#45702269)
I thought the duration-related risk for that kind of surgery was based on how long the patient is put on a heart and lung machine? Naively I'd expect that to be riskier than the anesthesia.
How is "the patient is put on a heart and lung machine" not the field of anaesthesia? That's exactly what it is.
Re:Code Like a Surgeon
by johncolanduoni on Sunday October 26, 2025 @03:07PM
(#45714385)
That's a different specialty - perfusionist. Most surgeries with general anesthesia don't require a heart and lung machine and anesthesiologists aren't trained to operate one.
Re:Code Like a Surgeon
by bonsai_spool on Saturday October 25, 2025 @07:17AM
(#45702958)
I’m not sure where you’re getting your salary data, but doctors routinely earn more than developers
Experienced doctors, yes. Though I’m hearing some ridiculous salaries in SF.
> Long ago
Re:Code Like a Surgeon
by bonsai_spool on Saturday October 25, 2025 @03:28PM
(#45706342)
> Experienced doctors, yes. Though I’m hearing some ridiculous salaries in SF.
There is no medical specialty except perhaps pediatrics/geriatrics where the pay will start below $200,000. There is a relatively modest effect of seniority on physician salaries (there is a huge amount of quality control/gatekeeping before one becomes an attending). This is nationwide, not in SF.
Here are data in SF: https://www.doximity.com/reports/physician-compensation-repo...
And another source that reflects, purportedly, the data used in the above: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DL6MT-ZMJ7K/
I'm not a developer but I don't think $300-400,000, normal salaries for fields like inpatient psychiatry or subspecialty medicine, are common for new developers, or even for any developer (vs a manager).
When I asked why the answer was because it's the most dangerous job there. There's more opportunity to kill a patient with the anesthesia than any other means.
The main reason they don't want you to eat before surgery is that you can regurgitate and damage your lungs. But even if they solved that, the anesthesiologist's job is easier if you're in a fasting state both before and at the end of a surgery.
A quadruple bypass is not dangerous because you're stitching 4 new arteries onto a heart. It's dangerous because it takes so long to stitch 4 new arteries onto the heart that you're running up against the limits of how long you can safely keep someone sedated without causing life threatening complications.
I'm having trouble finding current statistics but at the time I was learning this, a double bypass was many times safer than a quadruple. Articles on bypass surgery understandably focus on the aspects that are within the patient's control.