OP
Thanks for that great explanation.
Recompression And Medical Ethics
- Thread starter boulderjohn
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
iamrushman
Contributor
great topic and good points ...will monitor.
I don't know how much it is in scope of this thread (mod please feel free to move), but I wonder how much it would be possible, at least in theory, for a chamber to become fully automated, or at least to have the ability to be operated remotely. It seems that the biggest limitation is, that there needs to be an attending physician inside the chamber with the patient. What are the kinds of care that the physician in the chamber can effectively provide? I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that things like CPR or surgery of any kind are out of the question, because the physician could not take the necessary tools with him or her into the chamber. What other life-saving care can a physician in the chamber provide? I'm not implying there isn't any, I ask because I'm not familiar with the chamber treatment, and I come here to become better educated. So, aside from legal, and other non-technical considerations, what are the main reasons why a human must be in the chamber with the patient? Which of these could not be plausibly addressed by throwing today's technology at the problem? Thanks!
I'll let the real docs fill that list in. I only fix sick networks.
Depending on the type of chamber, an inside attendant may not be required. Monoplace chambers hold only one person, the patient, and are generally used for less acutely ill patients, though some facilities treat critically ill, intubated patients in them. Multiplace chambers like the one at Duke hold more than one person; patients are accompanied by at least one attendant (not necessarily a physician, often an RN, paramedic or EMT), who will place the oxygen apparatus on the patient and intervene in emergencies.
The standard of care for hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the U.S. is that a physician must be present or immediately available during the treatment, so remote supervision, telemedicine and automated chambers would not meet that.
Best regards,
DDM
The standard of care for hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the U.S. is that a physician must be present or immediately available during the treatment, so remote supervision, telemedicine and automated chambers would not meet that.
Best regards,
DDM
That's just what I was wondering, whether it's primarily for legal reasons, or whether it's actually technically infeasible for some reason. Sounds like it's mostly the former? With respect to forced ventilation, chest compressions etc., I would expect that all the technology to enable this already exists, and that it is cheaper than human labor over the long-term, is that the case? I'm just trying to understand things better, please correct me where needed. Thanks!
Going into a chamber is a traumatic event. Going in on cruise control would be even more so.
It is an interesting concept though and standards of care change as medical knowledge and capabilities "advance." Like it or not we now have robotic surgery and virtual medical visits. Why not one day an automated chamber with remote supervision.
Similar threads
