-
Gentlemen, Good intentions and Watchful, thank you for your robust replies. If Watchful is correct that there’s “nothing really to debate” because you gentlemen agree that in some cases “mesh is the best option,” then this is a step forward in our understanding of things inguinal hernia. In my opinion, too often this website drones on mesh doctors as a class of villains and that mesh has absolutely no redeeming value. Please don’t take my statement as one in support or against mesh. Unquestionably mesh is intuitively a sound idea; how it is actualized can be a problem.
Again if Watchful’s assessment is correct, then I hope Good intentions remembers that he actually allows for the application of mesh in some cases. Let me point out though that because one has had “experience working for large corporations” does not necessarily “give [one] more insight” into the matter. Belief that it does or “probably” so could unfortunately be self-deceptive by believing major litigation is ipso facto that mesh or its producer is the evil presumed.
Is “hernia repair mesh … part of the club now”? Thus tobacco, like mesh, can be a viable medical remedy? If one allows the use of mesh in some instances, hardly can one claim that mesh is on par with tobacco–that they form a club together. Further to put “guns, tobacco, self-driving cars, opioids, asbestos-containing talc, herbicides (Roundup)” together presumably as a class of evil doers is quite a stretch to say the least. Conspiracy theories are best left in Hollywood yarns than in critiques of medical practices. The more the two separated, the more insightful the critique. Thank you!