Originally Posted by ShepherdLady
Never heard of a neurosurgeon being held to a higher legal standard. As are far as Spinal Surgery there is a specialty and that is a Spinal Specialist. Which is what my Orthosurgeon is.
And it was my Neurologist that recommended him.
As I stated, choosing a surgeon is an individual decision.
I will be clearer with regard to "specialties" and "legal standard."
The American Board of Medical Specialties provides specialist certifications for physicians. This is what a physician refers to when he/she speaks of being "Board Certified" in a specialty.
The American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery provides physicians, assuming they meet the rigorous criteria, with Board Certification in the general specialty of "Orthopaedic Surgery" and, in some cases, one of its two subspecialties, which are "Surgery of the Hand" and "Orthopaedic Sports Medicine." The American Board of Neurological Surgery provides physicians who meet their criteria with a Board Certification in the general specialty of "Neurological Surgery."
There is not a recognized
specialty of "Spinal Specialist." In legal terms recognized "specialists" are held to a national standard while General Practicioners (family Dr.s) are held to a local standard.
What this means is, that if patient X sees a Neurosurgeon in the middle of North Dakota, then that Neurosurgeon's level of knowledge and skills will be measured against that of Neurosurgeons everywhere (even N.Y. city). The exact same concept applies to Orthopaedic Surgeons.
They are two different specialties; Neurosurgeons receive two more years of medical training than Orthos and have the skills and knowledge to perform procedures that an Orthopaedic Surgeon cannot (as in the thecal sac example). The applicable standards of care are different.
I hope that explains it.