🚀 go-pugleaf

decastro@netcom.com (Richard A. De Castro) writes:

> The vast majority of injuries related to snakebites in the US are
> caused by overeager application of various snakebite remedies, the worst
> of these being the discredited "cut and suck" method that is so
> popular with the folks who carry those Cutter's Snake Bite Kits.  I have
> photographs of injuries that have resulted in massive tissue necrosis, and
> loss of limb, from those damned kits, as well as some fools idea to put
> an icepack on to hold down the swelling.

Would you mind elaborating on this?  The principle behind the kits 
certainly seems reasonable enough: to remove the venom in order to
limit the damage that it can do.  And it also seems reasonable enough
that even an incomplete attempt to suck out the venom would be better
than leaving it in, and thereby doing nothing to limit the exposure of
blood an tissues to something that is rather unambiguously Not Nice.

Also, if the Cutter's kits are so counterproductive, why isn't that
better known to the public at large?  Wouldn't the nation's physicians
be ethically obligated to get the word out with as much fanfare as
possible?  And this being the U.S. of A., wouldn't the Cutter compan
be needlessly exposing itself to product liability litigation by 
marketing a product that was potentially harmful?

The idea of putting on an icepack sounds logical enough as well, since
it would tend to reduce local blood circulation by constricting blood
vessels.  Even if that remedy _is_ misguided, I think you're going a 
bit far by calling those who believe in it "fools."  You have to admit,
the rationale behind it is reasonable enough.

Do you have any statistics on the success of treatment of rattlesnake
bites with various types of treatment, including the "cut and suck"
treatment, and without any treatment at all?  Also, I don't think it
would be unreasonable to ask what your medical qualifications and
experience are.  


> I've only seen one patient (out of  hundreds) who even needed 
> antivenin (and he needed a whole bunch of it, something on the 
> order of 14 vials, more than the total the 5 hospitals in the
> area (Ft. Hunter-Liggett, CA) had available.

What determines whether or not a patient "needs" antivenin?  I'd think
that simply having been bitten by a rattlesnake would be sufficient.
It would certainly be enough for _me_ to insist on it rather vehemently,
if I were in that position.  Isn't it the nature of hemotoxin that once
the "need" for antivenin becomes apparent, the damage has already been
done to a significant, if not fatal, degree?



Geoff

-- 
Why be politically correct when you can be right?