Thursday, August 30, 2007
About that amputated finger in Sicko
A hand surgeon comments on this vignette in the movie:As a hand surgeon who treats many traumatic injuries, Moore's portrayal of a patient who amputated his middle fingertip captured my interest. He depicted this uninsured man as required to pay $23,000 to have his finger "saved." Moore lost considerable credibility here. Most hand surgeons would never consider micro-surgically replanting this table saw injury at the finger nail base. Rather, this unfortunate injury would have been comfortably and safely treated -- without reattachment of the severed bit of finger -- in an office procedure room for $1,000 or less.
Posted by Kevin |
link
| Comments (2)
| 
Comments:
Much of Moore's evidence is anecdotal and over the top, but some of his points are valid. Healthcare is run like a business, and as long as our Healthcare industry is maximizing profits, the lower class American will suffer.
If this is true, then it begs the question of why a surgeon would offer to do that surgery for $23,000. If I recall correctly, Moore did produce a written estimate of the cost of the surgery, so he was not lying or exaggerating on that count. People who accuse Moore of exaggerating seem to forget he tried hard to document everything in that film, knowing that all the minutiae would be subjected to intense scrutiny by his critics. He was not wrong in predicting his critics would focus on the trees to continue hiding the realities of the forest.
So the only possibility that remains is that the surgeon who wrote this piece is wrong or the surgeon who recommended reattaching the finger at exorbitant cost is wrong. Since the latter surgeon had the chance to examine the finger up close and personal, he was in a better position to make a judgement on its saveability. This does not preclude the possibility he was lying to make a buck, though, as that kind of abuse seems to be fairly common in our for-profit system.
Post a Comment
So the only possibility that remains is that the surgeon who wrote this piece is wrong or the surgeon who recommended reattaching the finger at exorbitant cost is wrong. Since the latter surgeon had the chance to examine the finger up close and personal, he was in a better position to make a judgement on its saveability. This does not preclude the possibility he was lying to make a buck, though, as that kind of abuse seems to be fairly common in our for-profit system.
