I recently came across a substack article by Sensible Medicine that dove into a very interesting study on climate change, but it wasn’t interesting for the reasons you may assume. We all want to leave a better world for our children to inherit, but that doesn’t mean always making the environmentally concision choice. This study was the epitome of that logic, as researchers dove deeper into the carbon footprint of a specific medical procedure, and they actually suggested that a procedure’s carbon footprint should be considered when guiding medical decisions.
Let’s back up a bit and explain more about the study. For the study, researchers at Columbia University decided to explore the carbon footprint of two specific procedures for patients with a heart condition known as aortic stenosis. Left untreated, aortic stenosis can be damaging and deadly, and up until a decade ago, the only treatment option to address the issue was surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). It’s a hard surgery on both the patient and surgeon, and healing slowly occurs over the course of many months.
Advances in medical technology have improved our ability to treat this condition, and now another operation is offered – the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This procedure allows the surgeon to place a new aortic valve into the old valve via a leg artery. There is much less trauma on the body with TAVI, and healing occurs in days, not months. It is significantly easier on the patient, and it typically produces great results. And while other factors will determine if SAVR or TAVI is right for the patient, many people aren’t clearly in one camp or the other for health necessities, so they have a little more say in which procedure is performed. Not surprisingly, more patients are gravitating towards TAVI.
The Carbon Footprint Of Surgery
To add another factor to the equation, researchers wanted to learn more about the carbon footprint of these procedures. Their research was published in the European Heart Journal, where they found that the total life cycle carbon footprint was lower for TAVI than SAVR, by about double (280-340 kg CO2e vs 620-750 kg CO2e, respectively). And while that’s interesting, the aspect of their study that has many medical professionals reeling is their conclusion, which states:
“These findings should potentially be considered when making population level decisions and guidelines moving into the future. While carbon emissions should not be the deciding factor in the treatment strategy for individual patients, relative emissions should play a role in the future when deciding between differing treatment options.”
I understand that researchers are not suggesting that one procedure should always be chosen simply because it has a lower carbon footprint, but to suggest that patients should add the carbon footprint of their procedure to their list of pre-op considerations is wild. Imagine sitting with a patient who is dealing with a potentially life-or-death scenario and informing them of the carbon footprint the’ll place on the world by choosing a certain surgery. That’s insane.
I’m pro-climate, but your doctor should never weigh the climate impact when determining which surgical procedure to perform, nor should the administrator, the insurer or the government. The climate change proponents, which I am one of, have gone too far with this study.