Interesting story. Not sure how to comment on that one since it's a news article. Having been on the receiving end, or directly witnessing colleagues being accused of 'botched' operations or being responsible for complications, while being privvy to the inside story which clearly demonstrates no fault, I've learnt to be careful about these things.
Of course, I've also seen where mistakes have clearly been made leading to severe consequences, some lifelong and even deaths, as a direct result of mistakes, oversites, poor decisions and 'botched' operations. Mistakes that patients and relatives are unaware of because of their lowered expectations considering the severe circumstances or problems with which they presented. They are often thankful, considering it all, just unfortunate. What does 'botched' surgery mean anyway? A rational person would perhaps propose that it means surgery that results in complications that are not recognised/expected/understandable given the pathology and procedure that was undertaken. It's not surprising that emotions and poor communication on the part of surgeons interfere with this insight producing expectations way above the reality of the given situation.
The frustrating thing is that the truth isn't always so easily evident on the surface or is often denied because it's difficult to accept. When emotions are flaring for those who are directly affected and more importantly, not familiar with the details, the focus is on what is to be done to save the situation and not also, on the scale of the problem the surgeon is presented with, the likelihood of success, as well as the importance of the aftercare that involves everyone's input and co-operation. It all seems easy and straightforward in principle, but it can be really difficult/challenging for both parties involved.
When something does go wrong that is unexpected, and where there is serious loss involved, the blame game can be frustrating and unfortunately, the one with the most dramatic contribution, typically the surgeon, is saddled with the responsibility. Investigations are therefore essential and I tend to give the benefit of the doubt without an investigation being done. I've been been inappropriately presumptuous on enough occasions to have learnt my lesson. The story may seem obvious as presented, only for a vital piece of information to come to light that throws the implications either in favour of or against the surgeon. So my input is typically heavily qualified with 'based on what I know or what you say.... etc.' or we cannot conclude anything without more information.
I'm more interested in whether or not Doohan's initial care was investigated formally investigated through a lawsuit and whether or not he got compensated for his complications and mishaps. If so, then this implies a botched operation or mismanagement at some point. If not, then we can only speculate. I can assure you that the surgeon is on the backfoot in court hearings. There is no sympathy and the judge is typically on the side of the patient who needs to be protected while the surgeon's care needs to be scrutinised and critiqued without mercy. All understandable.
In Marc's case, I see a potential chain of errors. The initial operation was questionable. The decision for him to ride and declaring him fit to ride is where I think THE blatant error was made.... I still feel my emotions flaring up at the thought of it with special mention of this decision being downplayed by placing the focus on the initial operation, trying to give it full credit for Marc's current situation. The second operation and what was done.... this hasn't been looked at. The third operation was aggressive but seemed appropriate anyway. As aggressive as preventing him from competitively riding, i.e., taking part in a full race weekend, for at least 8 weeks after the initial operation.
I fully expect the lawsuit.
