>>>>How did it go from inoperable to operable? Aside from just dropping the "in" of course.
>>>
>>>By finding the surgeon who was capable of doing the job. There are plenty of surgeries that you'd only want to have done by one of the, say, five people in the world who know how to do it right.
>>>
>>>The fact that he went to Duke to have it done, rather than staying in Boston (which has a tremendously good medical community) says that this surgeon is something special.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>So, it really comes down to that inoperable/operable is based on the doctors experience/skill. It was only inoperable to the first doctor. To the second one, it was ok to operate. I always thought of it as a hard fact, but it's really just an opinion.
>
>There are a couple of things here. First, something inoperable a few years ago might be operable today. The technology for surgery continues to improve.
>
>Second, there's a continuum. Some tumors are clearly operable, while others are clearly inoperable. In between, there's a gray area (not to be confused with "gray matter" <s>) where doctors might reasonably differ about whether a tumor is operable and whether it's worth operating on.
>
>Third, with almost any serious medical decision, it's wise to get a second opinion.
>

This one was described as inoperable when it was announced at the beginning of last week. I know you were away and may have missed the news other than maybe a headline.