Interestingly enough, evidently none of us has commented on the one crucial difference between medieval torture and modern medicine - informed consent. You always have the option, as I understand it, to say "No mas!" and the medical establishment then packs away their tools and goes home. Again, before my open heart procedure, the surgeon went over the procedure, the risks and benefits (there was a 1% chance of dying - about as good as it gets), the recovery regimen, and my likely future prospects. I then gave my signed, written consent to the procedure.

I am not an expert on medieval torture techniques and procedures, but I don't believe those practitioners received consent before initiating their work.

Somehow informed consent makes a huge difference - in surgery as well as other aspects of life.

BTW, as I imagine someone might inquire, if a patient is unconscious or unresponsive, consent is implied....

Additional Comment: Just returned from receiving my annual flu shot, and guess what? I needed to fill out a one page form giving my consent to the procedure! A lot of medical practice today, like giving vaccinations, is preventive medicine which eases pain and suffering, as well as holding costs down. Definitely a long way from torture, medieval or otherwise

Would you have given consent if the doc said he could use no form of anesthetic during the procedure, and you would be fully awake and remember the whole thing? I am sure some would go ahead anyways, but how would that difference affect your decision to go ahead? How would it affect, say, a liver transplant go decision, or a lung transplant?

Consent is much easier to give when you know you won't be there for the experience. Consent is also irrelevant to my argument, as the comparison is of the event, not the outcome.

I must confess I have a hard time following your logic. Is it correct to say that you object to this kind of procedure simply because it looks rather grisly (I dare say! - Aztec cardiology and all that)? Your earlier comment, "It is not the outcome that I am drawing a comparison on, it is the activity." leads me to that conclusion.

I wouldn't have the option of open heart surgery without anesthetic, and several other technologies - remember my heart was not beating and in a certain sense I was dead with a fairly sophisticated heart lung machine continuing to maintain my organs, as well as a whole bunch of items of which I remain oblivious. I am fairly certain I was not a pretty sight on the table in the OR. But the outcome was extremely positive - I have remained fairly vigorous, continuing active fieldwork and doing a lot of bike riding. I ran into a chap the other day who had undergone the very same procedure and he was also rather vigorous, positive, and pleased with the final result.

I understand that surgical procedures were unspeakably primitive during the Civil War era, but fortunately that era is behind us and therefore irrelevant.

Let me offer an analogy - running a marathon. One endures a lot of physical punishment and pain, with the risk of traumatic injury. My first marathon (I completed five), especially, was really rough, particularly the last five miles, and I could barely walk the next day. Was it worth it? Absolutely! I was hurting, but I was extremely happy, satisfied, and content. One gets the same result on any challenging undertaking - finishing and writing up research, for instance. Go through the fire, achieve the objective, and enjoy the result. Pain inflicted becomes rather minor.

Yes, it is the activity, not the outcome I am addressing. Object would not be the right term; reluctance or aversion would be closer to it. Notwithstanding your cardiac procedure, what about the other examples I cited? Would there be an aversion to going through a liver or lung transplant without anesthesia?

Kudos to you for enduring the hardship of marathoning. It does have it's implicit rewards, and like many things in life, it is worth suffering for if you have a mind for it. I believe natural childbirth can sometimes be quite uncomfortable, yet many women willingly go through it for the benefit they hope to receive. Some do not share that desire. One of the fantastic things about the human psyche is its ability to deal with great suffering when properly motivated. I suppose there are those out there who might actually be able to endure going through a liver transplant without anesthesia as well. I don't think everyone would be, however.

I think we are making progress here. Your point thus far is well made, and while of a different focus than mine, does affirm the more positive aspects of modern medicine. If we can hold our civilization together, we should continue to make great progress in making and keeping people well, the good Lord willing and the river don't rise.

You know, I do find this conversation slightly amusing. Here we are on a survival forum of all places, discussing the cons of modern medical procedures that might very well save one's life - but which some apparently find too "grisly" for their taste...

Maybe it's just me but I happen to find that somewhat ironic. Also, it makes me wonder about that No. 1 commodity in any survival situation, the will to live. To keep on fighting no matter what, even when it hurts like hell and your chances are basically zero.

If somebody decides to turn down life-saving medical assistance out of entirely irrational fears or prejudice I think it's a pretty good sign that their will to live is lacking. Not really conducive to "survival" of any shape or form IMHO.

Please, do not take this the wrong way. I am not trying to judge anyone. If anything, I really appreciate Benjammin's honesty when talking about these fears openly. Then again, I like to think of that old saying - no pain, no gain.

Just a few days ago someone very close to me has had a somewhat "routine" but no less grisly surgery that, if gone wrong, could confine that person to a wheelchair. Fortunately, it seems the surgery was a success and that person's quality of life is going to improve drastically.

Would that person agree to the same procedure without anesthesia? Probably not, no way to carry out a surgery like that unless the patient is sedated and restrained. But that's not even an issue right now - anesthesia is available, for the time being at least, and it's not quite TEOTWAWKI... So what is the point, really?

Well stated - probably time to give this thread a rest.....

I reckon so.

Torture would be totally tolerable with anesthesia as well, though as we say, consent and intent are diametrically opposed.

Not so much fear, though there is an element of that in there. From my perspective, just not worth the trouble or the risk.

Yet here I sit, with all kinds of skills and supplies. I guess motivation is one of those have to have sort of things for survival as well. At least the experience has been entertaining. Sometimes people just get tired of putting forth the effort, of doing what has to be done all the time, and a break from the action starts looking like a reasonable concession. Of course, it helps knowing there's something waiting on the other side of the door.

Time to close the thread.

What, you guys are done already? Let's talk about other things that are like medieval torture --

1. spending time with my mother-in-law
2. flying these days!
3. Kim Kardashian
4. Watching Bear do his stunts

That just triggered my "Don't make me stop this car!" reflex.

I guess my MIL is more agreeable than you MIL, but for the ultimate analogue for medieval torture, how about child birth? That is something I have only experienced vicariously - even then it was pretty rough. Gotta be the ultimate for "no pain,no gain."