Pepino

1. still not up to it. 2. don't believe you should apologize. 3. my children tell me the same thing.

"I would love to debate this topic with you. Are you up to it?" Admittedly, no. Interesting though, assumptions are made regarding identities/backgrounds that are, (in my case), incorrect; I enjoy the anonymity this board affords its posters. As well, a debate substantiated by anecdotal data gleaned from one's practice could probably be considered a "straw man" argument...certainly, though, it has its place in a discussion forum.

If the captain of the ship doctrine no longer applies to the supervision of anesthetists, why then the incongruity between md and crna liability insurance premiums? It appears insurance carriers still hold anesthesiologists accountable for all actions of the team relative to the premiums charged. (The difference in premiums cannot be attributed to safety since both providers produce equally safe outcomes.) I suspect it, at some level, reflects the increased exposure mds encounter relative to supervision of multiple concurrent anesthetics.

this board is a microcosm of the nursing profession. we bicker, *****, and moan with eachother--this represents the crux of the issue as to why nurses, even though there are three some-odd-million of us, can't band together for a shared purpose. btw, if the working conditions at a hospital affiliated with the Wake Forest residency program are insufferable, the anesthetists employed there are free to leave. Again, this thread just adds credence to the importance of minding your own business--go to work, do your job, keep your mouth shut, and go home at the end of the day.

The Pennsylvania Study published only in the ASA sanctioned journal was a flawed piece of research indicating MDA directed anesthesia to be safer than that delivered by CRNAs. If CRNA anesthesia was truly less safe than MDA practice, I suspect CRNA liability rates would be much greater than they are now.Please refer to: http://www.aana.com/patients/hcfa/pastudy.asp