A car accident is completely avoidable by not driving, and you're suggesting that we "don't drive" by halting all CI surgeries because of the inherent risks involved.
It would be great to have a better evaluation like you suggest, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is a similar or greater probability of being killed in a car accident than through complications with CI surgery. It's just that most people (probably you included) think that driving is worth the inherent risks that come with it, but you don't feel that the inherent risks of CI surgery are worth it. It's that old risk/reward comparison at work.
We can't avoid death 100% of the time.
By not driving, you'd still get killed by something else. Some things can't be avoided.
Can you avoid a meteor that crashes through the roof of your house and smack you square on your head?
You can avoid the risk associated with CI by not having one! Period.
Better deaf than dead.
Sticking your head in the sand like an Ostrich and calling the risks with CI as "old news" is just plain ignorant.
What also gets me is that many Doctors are not disclosing information about the risks of CI because many think there isn't any. Even if they think that since a patient has been immunized, it's all good. That's even more ignorant.
Speaking of old news, still think the risk of CI as "old news"? How about the Feb 5th, 2008 news article...
City mourns beloved worker, ‘Sumner’s sweeper’ | TheNewsTribune.com | Tacoma, WA
Some 48 year old deaf dude took the CI and he later died. 48 years too young!
He had the CI on Jan. 28, 2008 and he died 3 days later of.....guess what???
***************drum roll*******************
Yes! You guessed it right!!
Meningitis!!!!
Look at these poor families crying because they lost someone that they loved and it didn't have to happen!!!! That really aggravates me!!!
I'll bet you 10 to 1 that the doctor never told him about the risks!
And I'll bet you 10 to 1 that if he had been well informed of the risks, he would have backed out. Unless he rather be dead than deaf, which is very unlikely.
Of course he made his choice, but I wonder if his "choice" was truly informative?
So you think that the risks of CI is very small and you're willing to ignore the numbers of deaths associated with CI and still promote it? I think that's pretty damn selfish.