Global warming cult says surgery patients should receive less anesthesia to save the planet
Giving patients who are undergoing invasive surgery anesthesia to quell their pain is bad for the planet
, according to the cult of climate change.
New research presented by Dr. Mohamed Fayed at the recent annual conference of the American Society of Anesthesiologists claims that delivering one hour of surgical anesthesia to a patient is the equivalent of driving a car 470 miles in terms of "greenhouse gas" emissions.
In order to save the planet from global warming, Fayed stated, "lowering the flow of anesthetic gas" to patients is critical. Sure, they will be in a lot more pain, but at least Fayed will no longer have to worry about the polar ice caps melting and possibly flooding his yard.
"Global warming is affecting our daily life more and more, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become crucial," Fayed is quoted as saying. (Related: In 2019, history professor Juan Cole expressed worry
about hurricanes causing Florida to sink because of Gov. Ron DeSantis' "inaction" on climate change.)
"No matter how small each effect is, it will add up. As anesthesiologists, we can contribute significantly to this cause by making little changes in our daily practice – such as lowering the flow of anesthetic gas – without affecting patient care."
Treating cancer patients is also harming the planet, claims separate study
According to Fayed, patient care will not suffer in any way by reducing the use of anesthesia during surgery. Patients need to suffer through the pain, he suggested, because up to 0.1 percent of the world's carbon emissions come from anesthesia – and he considers this to be too high.
Treating cancer patients is also contributing to global warming, suggested another study published in the American Cancer Society Journal
back in 2020:
"To date, no studies have estimated the carbon footprint of cancer care," an excerpt from that study reads.
"The energy expenditure associated with operating cancer treatment facilities and medical devices, as well as the manufacturing, packaging, and shipment of devices and pharmaceuticals, contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions in cancer care ... Some cancer treatment facilities have begun to consider their own carbon footprint and started a process to achieve carbon neutrality."
In other words, saving lives is simply too taxing on the planet and must end immediately or else the "boiling" oceans, as Al Gore calls them, will rise and drown us all.
As for the anesthesia issue, Henry Ford Health is already making changes to its regimen by axing the drug desflurane from all operating rooms. The group claims that desflurane produces the most significant carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and thus cannot be allowed for any further use.
To our readers: Would you feel confident receiving care at a place like Henry Ford Health that is more concerned about the climate than with your wellbeing? Would you trust its doctors and nurses to take proper care of you in this context?
The same goes for cancer centers that are more concerned about being "green" than with curing you. Some hospitals are claiming that the robotics and other advanced equipment used to treat cancers use too much energy and are thus too "polluting" to continue using.
One doctor's "solution" to this problem is to permanently switch to "telemedicine," which was popularized during the covid scamdemic as a way to "stop the spread." By treating patients virtually as opposed to in real life, cancer doctors can make their practices more "green" and "environmentally friendly."
"Here is a question for the American Cancer Society: If you need cancer treatment, would you go to a cancer treatment center that was worried about its carbon footprint? Or one that was worried about delivering the best possible modern care possible?" asks Climate Depot's Marc Morano.
The latest news about the climate can be found at Climate.news
Sources for this article include: