Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;329:1086 (6 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7474.1086
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
I spent the afternoon before the Rugby Union world cup with a patient liaison group, fine tuning our anaesthetic literature for distribution to preoperative patients. An essential part of this sort of information is a risk-benefit explanation. Patients increasingly seem to expect that low risk is equivalent to no risk and that if something goes wrong it is a consequence of "fault" and lack of care. The only time people turn this perception of risk-benefit on its head is with the lottery: people regularly buy into the 1 in 14 million chance of winning the jackpot, but none would expect to be hit by lightning or die under anaesthesiaboth of which are more likely.
I was healthya low risk for occlusive vascular events. I was 51 years old, a non-smoker for 20 years, body mass index 24.5, blood pressure a reasonable 135/85 mm Hg, blood cholesterol 5.6 mmol/l. I am
David R Derbyshire, consultant in anaesthesia
Warwick Hospital (dr.derbyshire@ntlworld.com)
Read all Rapid Responses
UK medical students have published unreleased government plans to restrict failed asylum seekers' access to medical care