Basketball is still an awful sport to watch

From the current issue of Sports Illustrated:

So why do I care about this?

Four years ago, I said the same thing in a blog post called "Basketball is an awful sport. Heres why." If you dont want to read the whole thing, I will summarize.

Basketball is the only sport I can think of where a team can be rewarded for breaking the rules. Specifically, by deliberately fouling and opponents weaker free-throw shooters, a team that is losing can catch up when the weak free-throw shooter misses and the team that is losing gets the rebound.

All of the fouls and free throws plus the seemingly unlimited number of timeouts that each team has result in the last two minutes of the game taking 20 or more minutes.

To me, its unwatchable.

Pertinent to Van Gundys comments is that Detroit Pistons center Andre Drummond, who will play in the All-Star game, set an NBA record by missing 23 free throws in a single game on January 20.

This was part of a deliberate strategy by the Houston Rockets who were losing the game by nine points at the start of the third quarter. Houstons K.J. McDaniels fouled Drummond five times within nine seconds and the team fouled Drummond on seven straight Piston possessions. During that stretch, Drummond made 5 of his 16 free-throw attempts.

It must have been quite an exciting couple of minutes of play.

The All-Star Drummond had to be taken out of the game in the fourth quarter so that Detroit could hold on and win the game.

Yahoo Sports reporter Eric Freeman said: "While its a little inexact to say that sending a player to the line over and over again isnt basketball given that the rules allow it, its downright enervating to watch and not an ideal product for a league that ultimately sells entertainment above all else. Intentional fouling is also increasingly common, with seemingly each team having at least one player who gets sent to the line in opportune moments."

He suggested that NBA commissioner Adam Silver is going to have to do something about the issue.

Heres what Ive done about it. For the last few years, I havent watched basketball.

Read More..

Appendicitis and shared decision making

Staying with the current theme of appendicitis on my blog, here is a summary of recent developments. A JAMA Surgery Viewpoint suggested that because of the findings of a Finnish randomized trial, surgeons now should give patients with appendicitis a choice between an appendectomy or treatment with antibiotics.

The paper acknowledged my criticisms of the Finnish study which found that simple appendicitis could be treated successfully with antibiotics in almost 75% of patients.

I respect the authors of the JAMA Surgery article and am happy they referenced the blog post noting my concerns about that Finnish trial: the trial compared antibiotics to open appendectomy—an operation with more complications than the more commonly performed laparoscopic appendectomy; the antibiotic used in the Finnish trial is not a first line choice in the United States; patients were followed for only one year.

The JAMA surgery paper answered three questions I posed in a previous post. One, the Viewpoint authors consider antibiotic therapy for appendicitis mainstream. Two, surgeons must assume that patients might opt for antibiotics despite at least a 25-30% chance of suffering a recurrence of appendicitis. Three, an informed consent discussion now should include a mention of antibiotics as an option.

I disagree with the Viewpoint authors’ assertion that antibiotics are as safe and effective as surgery for treating appendicitis. Based on one flawed study, antibiotic therapy cannot yet compare to the many years of excellent results of laparoscopic appendectomy.

Here are some other problems.

Let’s talk about shared decision-making. After hearing all the options, some patients will want to guide their own care. However, most patients would rather not. A 2011 Journal of Medical Ethics study of over 8000 patients found that 97% “of respondents wanted doctors to offer them choices and to consider their opinions. However, two out of three (67%) preferred to leave medical decisions to the doctor.”

What about the medicolegal implications of antibiotic therapy for appendicitis? Right now, the “standard of care” for appendicitis is appendectomy. Suppose a surgeon, in the interest of shared decision-making, explains the Finnish study to a patient and neglects to mention that it only involved patients with simple appendicitis. Or suppose that patient’s CT scan is read as simple appendicitis but is not accurate, and the patient actually had complicated appendicitis that went on to perforate despite antibiotic therapy.

If that patient becomes septic and requires a laparotomy and suffers a subsequent wound infection and massive hernia or dies, who is going to be held responsible for not recommending an appendectomy? Certainly not the patient.

In the era of shared decision-making and patient autonomy, maybe patients should be required to carry malpractice insurance so they can sue themselves if the decisions they make turn out badly.

Read More..