Last week, we discussed whether online sources of medical information should be increasingly regulated; the overwhelming affirmation we received for the above statement signals us all to the growing disillusionment the general public has with the internet.
This week, we shall discuss whether teamwork is more important than the skills of individual team members, in the context of innovations in surgical skills.
This week's statement modified to fit what I said above is as follows:
"Teamwork is more important for surgical innovation than the skills of an individual surgeon"
The statement argues that teamwork in the field of surgeries advances the boundaries of the field by a greater amount than the skills of a lone surgeon. This view is extensively supported by how a surgery is preceded by an incredible number of check-ups and controls on the patient to ensure he or she is adequately prepped for surgery. Surgical innovation does not only impact what happens inside the OR; it affects how the patient is dealt with in the In-Patient Department (IPD) as well by the nurses, the surgical attendings, even the housekeeping staff! These factors complement each other, chipping in small refinements into their methods and as a result contributing towards surgical innovation. Furthermore, medical breakthroughs like the formulation of heparin, the discovery of insulin and that of ether anaesthesia (all of which have major surgical utility) were discovered by medical students keeping their eyes open in the Operating Room (OR).
An opponent to the above statement would argue that crediting teamwork more than individual surgeon skills is a fallacy because it discounts the fact that all the heavy lifting in the OR is carried out by individual surgeons: the argument above would be equivalent to saying that all of England was responsible for the formulation of the theory of gravitational forces rather than Sir Isaac Newton because they all influenced his day-to-day life in some manner. Additionally, it could also be argued that even if an attending or surgical resident had suggested an innovation to the procedure, it is primarily the surgeon’s responsibility to accept or reject the proposal: the medical pillar of consequentialism would then squarely place all the blame of the operation’s failure on that individual surgeon. Surgeons should be credited more for surgical innovations chiefly because they primarily take responsibility for all the happenings of the OR, and it is their livelihood that is on the line if something goes wrong.
In conclusion, I reckon that although many surgical innovations were guided by or even precipitated by teamwork, none of these innovations would have gone ahead without the methodical surgeon’s contemplation of the merits of the procedure and whether it warranted a try. As a result, I believe the skills of an individual surgeon matter more than surgical innovation in pushing forth surgical innovation.
Do you think my conclusion over here could extend to other teams as well? Let me know in the poll!
Comments