Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blood Vessel Shunt May Save Limbs In War

Posted by kdawson on from the leg-to-stand-on dept.

The FDA has just approved for military use a shunt that allows partially-severed limbs to continue to get circulation. The FDA approved the device in a fast-track process lasting only a week. The article notes: "For most, it won't be a matter of saving a limb outright but rather salvaging the quality of a wounded leg or arm... The shunt may save injured limbs from amputation, since it can be implanted on the battlefield to maintain blood flow until a wounded soldier undergoes surgery, FDA officials said. Since the start of the Iraq war, more than 500 soldiers have lost limbs, many to injuries suffered in roadside bombings."

14 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. Even better by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Peace may save limbs lost in war.

    In short: stop warmongering, and soldiers will stay in one piece.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Even better by LT7 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      stop warmongering, and soldiers will stay in one piece

      IANL but Iraq repeatedly violated UN Security council resolutions 678, 687, 1441. I'd say that the Iraq conflict was the absolute last resort. Whilst the countries that went in were foolhardy not to get UN Security Council authorisation they were hardly warmongering, Saddam brought it on himself.

    2. Re:Even better by Sinryc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If that is the case, you would have to tell it to every Democrat that voted for the war as well.

      --
      Yay, I have a sig.
    3. Re:Even better by LionKimbro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How does that make sense?

      The original poster said: tell it to bush and the republicans, we wouldn't be in there if it weren't for them

      You reply with: If that is the case, you would have to tell it to every Democrat that voted for the war as well.

      Democrat congresspeople voted for the war, it is true. But most of the Democrats that I know were against the war from the beginning. It was the Republican population that was supporting the war.

      Do you remember that neat little debate, within the population? Do you remember how divided everyone was, and how the newspapers were writing about it? The "misinformed" + "watching Fox News" numbers going around? Remember?

      Now, if the Republican population had been against the war, none of this would have happened.

      Us non-Congressperson Democrats were firmly against the war in Iraq. We said things like, "We don't believe that there are WMD there," we said things like, "Let's listen to the inspectors," we said things like, "This evidence is really shoddy," and we said "This is going to be a disaster. You can't spread Democracy like this." We said all sorts of things. And you know what? We were right on just about every damn single one of them!

      It was the Republican-voting population that allowed for this present reality to exist.

      Not the Democrats' population.

      So, tell it to the Republicans: Stop warmongering, and soldiers will stay in one piece.

    4. Re:Even better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ...if we were to leave, it'd be the blood of hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

      Maybe, maybe not. Obviously it would depend on the details of how the US left but, even if the details of the are specified, no one really knows. Sure, there are news anchors who were hired because they look dignified and authoritative who will look dignified and authoritative and tell the American public that the US needs to be in the Iraq to prevent a massive genocide. The bottom line is: know one really know what would happen.

      For example, if the US were to start withdrawing but were also to make it clear that they would go back if the Shia started a genocide then it is likely that the Shia would keep the lid on things. There's a good chance the Shia would divide up the country but there's a good chance that's going to happen anyway.

      We want to live in peace just as much as the average Iraqi. Lots of Iraqis cooperate happily with US troops to try to make their country a better place.

      Sure, everyone wants peace - they just want it on their own terms. That goes double for the USA. The key point here is that the USA is not a neutral party. The USA is also a militant faction trying to promote certain outcomes. Some Iraqis cooperate with the militant faction that is the USA and other Iraqis cooperate with other militant factions. The Iraqis cooperate with whichever militant faction they think is most likely to make Iraq a better place.

      We're simply "in the way" of Muqtada and friends' rise to power.

      Well, here's the thing. The Shia are the dominent ethnic group and they happen to like Muqtada and friends. That means that a democratic Iraq will have Muqtada and friends in power anyway. That means that a democratic Iraq will be a close ally of Iran. That means that a democratic Iraq will want to change Israel's name to Palestine and change it from being the eternal home of the Jewish people to the eternal home of the Palestinian people.

      Some people in the USA seem to think that "democracy" means "whatever people in the USA want". It doesn't. It means "whatever the Iraqi people want" (and the people in Iraq want very different things than the people in the USA).

  2. Only 500? by Weston+O'Reilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only 500 soldiers have lost limbs since the start of the war? Why does that sound so unlikely? We've been hearing all along that the death toll is so much lower than previous US wars because of advances in trauma care that allow soldiers to survive injuries that were once not survivable, but we're seeing a huge increase in limb loss in the trade off.

    Does anyone know if this statistic is accurate?

  3. War is ugly. by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it just another hi-tech gadget to shield yourself from the reality of war? Please, just stop and take you soldiers home, our president Putin is right that the US has overstepped it's national boundaries. Starting wars on tampered evidence, fueling the new nuclear arms race and destroying the MAD balance with missile defense programs. I'm serious, please make your government stop this descent into madness.

    --
    US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  4. What the hell is wrong with all of you? by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, it would be nice to not be in Iraq, but the fact remains that we're there and we're not pulling out anytime soon. Even if we were pulling out of Iraq immediately, there will be other wars in the world. This technology has nothing to do with politics, so knock it off.

    I'm not that familiar with battlefield medicine, but this seems like a big step forward for it. Anything that helps soldiers (American or otherwise) do their jobs better, protects them, or helps them live better lives after conflict is a good thing.

    --
    You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
  5. Re:Interesting statistics there. by lav-chan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uh. The same reason football players can't keep playing professionally after they've fucked up their knees?

    Just because it's still connected doesn't mean it's still functional.

  6. Re:Just so SOMEBODY does it..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...I sleep better at night knowing that there are men and women who volunteer for service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

    I would sleep better if there were more men and women who refused to serve in Iraq on the grounds that starting a war without international approval is a war crime. I would feel genuinely proud to be American. I'd be like "Yeah, those Nazi soldiers just followed orders but Americans are better. Americans think for themselves and don't let their leaders force them into fighting (and eventually losing) wars of aggression".

    But, if unquestioning loyalty to leaders of questionable judgement is really what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, then may I suggest moving to North Korea. I hear that obediance to authority is something they do very well in North Korea.

  7. Re:You know by SummitCO · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, a great number of Iraqi casualties are treated by US forces.

  8. They're only counting Americans by Gorimek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article, and the discussion here, only considers Americans. In reality, there is probably over 10 injured Iraqis for every injured American.

    The inability of the average American to even consider this can be seen as the whole problem of this war in a nut shell, if you're in a grumpy mood.

    An other mathematical factor is that you can amputate 600 limbs on only 150 people.

  9. Re:Bury your head in the sand by anagama · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nobody thinks the world would be at peace. But we wouldn't have fucked up Iraq. Saddam was no hero, but his was a secular regime hated by those who hate us. All we've done is give them another country to turn into a theocracy. At this point, there is no hope for the next three decades at minimum. Either we stay there till it is even more obviously impossible, at which point the anti-US theocracy takes over and 30-40 years later, tensions ease (think Viet Nam). Or we leave now, the theocracy takes over, and 30-40 years later tensions ease. This is all Bush's fault. Oh, and Nader's.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  10. Re:Just so SOMEBODY does it..... by localman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The anonymous parent post, flagged as flamebait, is dead on. It's just so dead on it's sad. And I'll be proud to be modded down as well.

    I just wish there was some way for the tiny minority who knew full well in advance that this war was a bad idea could have actually stopped it. But that's not how the world works. The hotblooded masses create a mess like this and then when it becomes obvious, they just embitter themselves against those who warned them rather than learn or admit they were wrong. Whatever.

    And of course this is an appropriate venue for this dissent: it's a serious fucking war. It's more important than anything. If you're complaining about the subtleties of message board etiquitte you may want to rethink your priorities.