Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Thursday December 14 2017, @12:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the ! dept.

A surgeon has admitted to branding the livers of two patients using a beam of ionized argon gas:

Bramhall previously worked at Birmingham's Queen Elizabeth hospital, where he gained fame for a dramatic liver transplant in 2010. Bramhall transplanted a liver following the fiery crash-landing of the plane that was transporting the donor liver to Birmingham. Though the pilots were injured, the liver was intact and salvaged from the burning wreckage. The transplant spared the life of Dr. Bramhall's desperately ill patient.

But in 2013, colleagues discovered that he had been initialing his patients' organs. Doctors first spotted the letters "SB" on the liver of one of Bramhall's transplant patients during a follow-up surgery. They later learned of initials on another patient. Bramhall was suspended in 2013 and resigned in 2014 amid an internal investigation into the etchings. Earlier this year, the General Medical Council issued Bramhall a formal warning, saying at the time that Bramhall's case "risks bringing the profession into disrepute, and it must not be repeated."

Bramhall etched his initials using an argon beam—a jet of ionized argon gas—which surgeons use to control bleeding during procedures. Doctors who are part of the investigation don't think the marks are harmful and expect them to clear up on their own.

Relevant PBF.

Also at BBC and The Guardian.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday December 14 2017, @02:03AM (5 children)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Thursday December 14 2017, @02:03AM (#609545)

    Oops, was still fucking with variations of ,

    , [quote], [/quote], you get the idea.

    Why does every website have different ways of, hell, choosing vs [? Not kidding, I frequently post on 3 websites and all 3 have different variations?

    --
    When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday December 14 2017, @03:52AM (1 child)

    by coolgopher (1157) on Thursday December 14 2017, @03:52AM (#609576)

    Aye, same with links. Is it <a href="http://somesite.example.com">linky</a>, [url=somesite.example.com]linky[/url], [linky](somesite.example.com), or maybe [somesite.example.com][linky]?

    For the block quotes, leading a line with a > would be a nice and convenient extension though.

    Of course, https://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com] comes to mind...

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:00AM

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Thursday December 14 2017, @04:00AM (#609577) Journal

      Maybe I could add a check to my extension that automatically converts BBCode to HTML.

      But wait, if you use my extension, you have buttons for all of these things that should be faster to use than typing it.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @11:21AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @11:21AM (#609649)

    What is used here is just plain HTML tags, the very same that end up being served to your browser (well, except for some additions; e.g. to the best of my knowledge HTML doesn't know the sarcasm tag). Why other sites had to invent that [] syntax when the <> syntax was around since the web itself was is beyond me.

    • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday December 14 2017, @08:14PM (1 child)

      by FakeBeldin (3360) on Thursday December 14 2017, @08:14PM (#609843) Journal

      Why other sites had to invent that [] syntax when the syntax was around since the web itself was is beyond me.

      As far as I know, it was from a security point of view. No HTML tags allowed is trivial to check (and scrub). Then the site itself would offer a limited conversion from the allowed [...] tags to HTML. Since this is far more limited, and you create everything you allow, there's a smaller chance of messing it up.

      Case in point: the edit wars a spammer and NCommander engaged in, where the spammer kept trying to poke holes and NCommander kept trying to plug them. Haven't seen that for a while, either they got bored or NCommander emerged victoriously (for now).

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday December 14 2017, @11:09PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday December 14 2017, @11:09PM (#609962) Journal

        While it is clearly not the algorithm done by this site, it is just as easy to safely support HTML tags:

        1. Convert all < to &lt;, all > to &gt; and all & to &amp;. At this point you can be sure that there are no unwanted HTML tags and/or entites in the text.
        2. Convert specific sequences like &lt;i&gt; back to <i>. This is no harder than doing it with [i] and also no less safe.

        As an additional bonus, when doing it that way, things that happen to look like HTML tags but aren't will generally be preserved in the output. So if you type "a < 1 || a > 3" then it will appear exactly like that in the output, instead of removing the "tag" and ending up with "a 3" (this is how I can know that this algorithm is not used by SN).

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.