[matsz]

As a patient, I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable with the doctor operating on me doing a speedrun.

Full sterilization before each surgery is a good thing. Better safe than sorry. Same for only having one patient in the operating room - reduced risk of contamination and human error.

[LeifCarrotson]

It's not a binary choice between a civil war surgeon's saw and an immaculate cleanroom, safety exists on a spectrum. Better safe enough than so incomprehensibly safe that the procedure is unaffordable and the doctor has 1/10th the experience and 100x as much paperwork!

Imagine, for a minute, that there's a physical lever at the FDA that controls the amount of cost, bureaucracy, and triple-checks that occur in hospitals. Think one of those steam engine throttles, with the big pawl release lever, it's set in front of an angle gauge with colors from red to green. One side is marked "Anarchy" and the other is marked "Better safe than sorry". Right now, that lever (or the metaphorical regulatory lever, the physical lever doesn't actually exist AFAIK) is as far over to the "safe" side as I can imagine it possibly being. The US lags behind on many modern medications and procedures, health care is unaffordable for somewhere between many and most, it's so miserably difficult to enter the field that we're not educating and training enough people, and the people that we do have trained are spending too much of their time doing paperwork and fighting the insurance system to take care of people. If you or a loved one have ever gotten a refusal of treatment or needed to wait for your disease to get worse before you can get care, you know how real this lever is.

If you ever get access to that lever, please, bring it at least one click back off the limiter. Maybe two. The potential harms that you imagine could caused by contamination and human error, at the moment, are less than the actual harms that are happening right now due to lack of affordable access.

People are going blind, in pain, or dying right now because it's too far towards the "better safe than sorry" side. If you were on a fixed income and found yourself unable to afford a $8000 cataract surgery as the world slowly grew dim, you'd wish you could visit an efficient practice and get it done for $150, even if that meant there was another patient on the other side of the OR.

[jtwaleson]

Exactly this. 10x the experience is very valuable.

[lithocarpus]

That's fair, except that sometimes there aren't enough resources (qualified surgeons, facilities, etc) for everyone to get that kind of care. I'd rather cheap care that is 95% good enough than none at all. (For things I really need - I think a majority of what the healthcare industry does is counterproductive but there is also plenty of stuff that's good like cataract surgery for example.)

[TheJoeMan]

You’d accept a 1 in 20 chance of acquiring a staph infection?

[TrainedMonkey]

This one is a tough sell, in that regime the doctors will have a significantly higher amount of practice which might translate into mastery. On the other hand I would expect post-procedure tracking and reporting be significantly better in the west.