Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[deleted]

Come on and what? Switching to an equally effective and far less destructive option is ...? What's your problem here?

I'll take the Jackson Juice, thanks!

Idk what they said other than "Come on", but I can only imagine they are skeptical as to how harmful it actually is. After all, I never expected my anesthetics to be biodegradable.

So are we going back to getting black out drunk and hopefully staying passed out through the entire procedure?

Just a wooden stick to bite on

I have always been a huge proponent of the environmentally conscious blow to the head.

OMG!! Me too!!! Just had foot surgery and came out of it feeling GREAT!!!

Leather belt if youre fancy

Tell your anesthesiologist that gas makes you intolerably nauseous. They might want to try a scopolamine patch, or they might just go straight to “TIVA”, which is total intravenous anesthesia, which is propofol (or “Jackson Juice”).

TIVA is much more expensive than the various gasses at their disposal, so you might keep that in mind as well (at least if you’re in the US).

[deleted]

The headline should explain what the alternative is otherwise the title just looks dumb.

TIVAs are more expensive, usually take longer recovery in PACU, and have higher concerns of intra operative awareness.

TIVA also allows for much better intra-operative neurosurgical monitoring! Gas obliterates SSEPs and MEPs (especially) to the point where if there’s any gas on board motor evoked potentials will be completely lost.

True. Overall, pros/cons for each - best to use correct anesthetic for the situation, as opposed to blanket statements of convenience

Absolutely, just like everything else in life the devil is in the details.

I assume they mean that the overall impact of desflurane is rather negligible in the grand scheme of carbon emissions. Hard to imagine banning desflurane in Scotland will have much impact

No, it was something along the lines "so we're using plants now? C'mon people!"

That makes absolutely no difference. How do you eat a whale? One bite at a time. Every time there is a reduction, it's a win. All the millions of times the "it's not a big deal and everybody does it" mentality added up and created this global mess. Now it's time to start using that same mentality to subtract, bit by bit. It won't stop with Scotland.

And I don't know what they meant. They said something stupid about "now we're going to start using plants?"

[removed]