'preventable death'... Policy and politics has the ability to prevent death by greater numbers even before we feel the need to rupture the aortas of our fellow human beings.
I'm curious, I was told most use cases of tourniques would require subsequent amputation. Is this the case here, as well? Do you amputate the pelvis? What would the life of a soldier look like in the hours, days after he received an injury to the abdomen and being saved by a device like this?
Part of the emphasis on this choice in first-aid classes is to keep
people from over-using tourniquets for injuries which do not pose a risk
of loss of life.
A laceration to the hand can look awful, but some pressure and elevation
can minimize blood loss even if definitive care is hours away without
risking loss of the hand or forearm by using a tourniquet.
In a massive trauma situation, such as from multiple penetrating wounds,
if the patient bleeds out and dies, other tissue damage does not matter
If the patient survives injuries that make it a good idea to block
the abdominal aorta - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_aorta
then there is a good chance he/she has survived due to good and rapid
field treatment, and rapid evacuation to a definitive care facility that
can manage any other tissue damage caused by lack of circulation below
This is very vague. I was trained to tie tourniquets for the limbs (arms and legs). I was taught that it takes a few hours before cell death sets in and about four until complete loss of limbs. This means that if you can get the wounded to a hospital (or a well equipped surgeon) quickly enough, you can even save the limb.
For other places like the abdomen and torso, the story is different.
Also, several occasions where it's impossible to apply the tried and true, so some medic has to hack a new solution to an old problem from what's available on site, and, one time out of n, it actually works. Not that this is the case.
Without wars, we could save the resources used for the blowing up part.
Also, please don't pretend erectile dysfunction is not a real problem to the people affected.
And that's the point: war makes research into treating basic trauma profitable in a way that everyday life doesn't. It's not worth it, but those are still the apparent facts. I mean, look at how low hanging the fruit described in the article is. If that were a device for making a man's penis hard, it would have been invented 15 years ago.
So the historical research into the drug was actually for the purpose of curing "serious" diseases, although I agree with eru that ED is a meaningful problem for those who are affected by it, and there is some serious utility gained from fixing the problem.
That said, ED isn't really a perfect poster child for the kind of medical research I'm talking about. It's just the best one to use with a one-liner because it conveys the point effectively, and because penises are funny. Other examples include treatments for male pattern baldness and second/third generation antihistamines.
With the former, the pharmacological options are all again opportunistic situations, although the point about investing in getting them to market still applies. With the latter, that is not the case. And although there's no denying that they have vastly improved the quality of life for people with serious allergy problems, there's also no denying that the main reason for the investment put into them was helping people with the spring sniffles (as evidenced by the fact that their approved doses are set so low that they are barely of any use to anyone (otherwise they wouldn't have passed muster for "non-drowsy" so that they could get fast track approval from the FDA)).
I don't suppose you have any numbers for the amount of money spent on various medical research?
Recent (July) articles indicate he's considering a withdrawal in 2014.
This article is interesting as well
More than a bit ironic in a lot of ways.
It's incredibly difficult to stop such bleeding and having such device will undoubtedly save lives on and off battle fields. For example in bad car wrecks.