Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cadre.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Exciting prospects!!
Message-ID: <468@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 11:12:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadre.468
Posted: Tue Jul 30 11:12:55 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 06:15:33 EDT
References: <4059@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 21


The surgery you mention is experimental.  While it has been
of possible value in dystonias and spasticity, it is certainly
no miracle.  Some surgeons tend to be overenthusiastic about
their own pet procedures, and the patients, who want to get
well so badly, tend to be ready believers.

Some questions I would ask before having the surgery:
1) Have you had a second opinion (or even a third)?
2) Has this program been approved by the hospital's human investigation
committee FOR YOUR INDICATIONS?
3) Has this program received funding where peer review has been done?

Now even if all these are answered no, I am not saying you shouldn't
have the surgery.  There is certainly need for people willing to
undergo experimental procedures.  But, I have seen too many cases
of people with spinal injuries whose hopes have been unreasonably
raised.  I suspect you might get some relief of spasticity.  If
that is what is being held out, then that is a reasonable hope,
I would just caution you and others that read your message not
to expect miracles.