Slashdot Mirror
Now Streaming: How To Do a Kidney Transplant (vice.com)
tedlistens writes: In January, hundreds of students enrolled in the University of Leiden Medical School's 'Clinical Kidney Transplantation.' But they weren't there: the class is completely virtual, the world's first massively open online course to offer instruction in the surgical procedure. Taught by 13 doctors through videos and interactive modules...the free course isn't intended to replace real-life education with hospital patients. Nor is it likely to prepare students to conduct a kidney transplant anytime soon. (For a fee, students can receive a certificate of completion.) But it's part of a new digital push among medical schools around the world, including Harvard and Stanford, that are seeking to educate a generation of students raised on smartphones and to expand their audiences to virtually anyone with a computer and an internet connection.
This is cool, I used to dream of widespread education back in the day. And now people are finding ways to do it, cheaply and en masse. This will be better for everyone eventually.
C|N>K
The only surgery instruction you need is here.
I like the idea that if, in a most insanely dire emergency, where you can't get a real doctor, this might be available.
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
Last June I donated one of my kidneys to someone I didn't know. It saved his life.
Currently, there are over 93,000 people on the kidney transplant waiting list. The wait for a deceased donor could be 5 years, and in some states, it is closer to 10 years. Patients are prioritized by how long they’ve been on the waiting list, their blood type, immune system activity and other factors. 80% of the people on the waiting list are on kidney dialysis. The longer a person is on dialysis and has to wait for a transplant, the short and long term success rates are negatively affected. On average, receiving a kidney transplant can double someone’s life expectancy.
Each day, 18 Americans die waiting for an organ transplant.
Please consider donating your kidneys after death, it can save lives. Better yet, consider doing a living donation such as what I did. All medical costs are covered by the recipient's insurance company. The results after a living donation are much better than after a post-mortum donation.
While the risks are not zero, they are about the lowest you can expect for any major surgery you can undergo as a donor
This doesn't make sense. Why not increase the number of medical schools to increase the supply of good doctors?
Taught by 13 doctors
A grumpy old geezer, a shabby-looking chap with a recorder, a dandy, a Bohemian...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Why is medical care so expensive in the US?
Why do we keep hearing about doctors in hospitals working on average 74 hours a week (down from 105 a week) https://www.sharecare.com/heal...
Doesn't sound like there are too many doctors to me.
(a) Which motels are best for this type of surgery?
(b) How much ice does a typical motel bathtub hold?
I'm asking for a friend.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Yeah, just what we need, a bunch of amateur surgeon junkies out there in Central Park stealing kidneys for a fix. This is like a course in making bombs.
On the contrary.
As an adult in society, how can I decide whether to agree with a government pronouncement unless I have the relevant information?
How can I know whether a law is needed, whether the technical claims of a company (looking for investment) are feasible, whether some claim to the safety of our nation is credible, or whether some risk is worth worrying about unless I have the information?
I don't expect to be making bombs, but knowing the basic premise allows me to judge whether the reasoning behind the TSA ban on liquids is a lie.
I don't expect to be making X-ray machines, but the basic information allows me to judge how much danger there is in a backscatter scan.
I don't expect to be breaking computer security, but knowing the basic techniques allows me to secure my system and detect government overreach.
Of course not everyone has the bandwidth and interest to become informed on all these issues, but for any single issue *some* people will be interested enough to become informed.
Those same people might have an insightful post on, say, a tech website, their conclusions might be echoed by others who have come to the same conclusion, and the ideas espoused might inform many others.
Really.
The idea that information should be suppressed because bad people might misuse it is stupid.
There are many, *many* more people who would use the information for good, rather than evil.
But more competition is healthy, and it will drive costs down. You can choose to either have a new doctor using old instruments or an old doctor using new instruments.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Gee, somebody is afraid of a little competition, itching to return to the days when the AMA manipulated down the number of med school places.
The market is very far from flooded, if the average hospital doctor is still working 74 hours a week.
74 hours a week is still way too many - the usual working week is 40 hours or so - 8 hours per day, leaving 8 for what is considered a healthy level of sleep, and 4 hours before and after to get ready, eat and go to work, get home eat a proper meal and get sufficient rest.
you wouldn't want to fly in a plane that was piloted by an overworked and tired pilot - that was doing double the normal hours, so why is it ok to have the average hospital doctor make life and death decisions with double a normal workload?
> Why is medical care so expensive in the US?
It's not. People intentionally confuse billing rates with amounts that are actually paid.
We also don't run the system at "100% load". There's some slack in the system that allows for timely medical care that often isn't possible in countries with "better medical care".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That's silly? Why would only Republicans believe in something basic like supply in demand. NOBODY works for free. Do you? Then why do you expect a doctor too, or a nurse, or an orderly?
If there isn't some reasonable expectation that they're going to get PAID, they aren't going to do diddly for you. That's why there's a Junior Doctor's strike brewing in the NHS.
Stuff isn't going to be made for you to leech off of if someone can't get rich off it first. Progress needs greed to feed on. This is why the Soviet Union collapsed and China backed off of total socialism.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...sounds like a classic case of "treating the number" rather than the disease. This leads to overdiagnosis of any number of things in the US. The relevant question isn't "how many doctors do you have" but how long to you have to wait to be seen?
When you can see a specialist the next day, even on a weekend, then there's probably not a shortage.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.