Is Medicine as Safe and Effective as is should be?

Tweet

In the US we are debating whether the costs of our Medical care should be a matter for the taxpayers or the individual. There are many arguments, both pro and con, for either side of the issue, but my question doesn't seem to come up very often. According to the Centers for Disease Control, and other statistic compilers, 180,000 people die every year as a result of reactions to medications. Up to 88,000 people die from infections they caught in the hospital. These aren't cases of malpractice, where the provider broke rules of ethics or standard of care, these are cases where the provider made a competent choice, based on the signs, symptoms and test results... but was wrong. Up until a few years ago, Levofed was considered a wonder drug for patients with a dangerously low heart rate. It was the first medication the medic reached for when it was indicated. After a few decades of using this med, a few researchers did a study about why some people still died, even after being given this wonder drug. What they learned was, while Levofed was wonderful for increaasing the heart rate, it also increased the heart muscle's demand for oxygen. This increased demand for oxygen led to death of heart muscle. In other words, by giving levofed we were actually killing patients who had a pretty decent chance of survival. I remember in Pharmocology and other paramedic classes, they taught us all sorts of reasons why the death of patients isn't anyone's fault... but if even the best medical care is killing more people than guns or car accidents, can we really claim Medicine is either "safe" or "effective"? Or do we just accept it because "we did all we could do"?