Really, it is.
There is pretty much no benefit to removing a lung surgically as you can return some, if not all the function of the lung on treatment.
( Amorous Badger NAKED BEA ARTHUR PHOTOS 4U, Wed 2 Mar 2011, 15:01, 1 reply)

Have you finished editing your reply yet?
I swear it changes every time I press F5
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 2 Mar 2011, 15:14, closed)

Clarifying the point for the wilfully ignorant here.

( Amorous Badger NAKED BEA ARTHUR PHOTOS 4U, Wed 2 Mar 2011, 15:17, closed)

Haha, "clarifying"
Oops, it's changed again
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 2 Mar 2011, 15:18, closed)

You're still wrong. I'm just telling you're wrong, more eloquently.
It's the internet equivalent of taking down shorthand and then writing it up longhand.
( Amorous Badger NAKED BEA ARTHUR PHOTOS 4U, Wed 2 Mar 2011, 15:27, closed)

So no-one in the history of medicine, ever, has had surgery for pneumonia?
And you're absolutely sure, 100%, that the OP's dad had no additional complications or conditions that might have required a thoracotomy/lobectomy?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 2 Mar 2011, 15:48, closed)

If he'd have gotten pneumonia in the pre-antibiotic 1940's it's possible.
Otherwise, unlikely.
Unless hey'd found a massive cancer.
In which case he'd have been too ill to go out on the piss.
Hence, horseshit.
( Amorous Badger NAKED BEA ARTHUR PHOTOS 4U, Wed 2 Mar 2011, 15:59, closed)

It's just that according to the literature available to me
Thoracotomy is used to treat "unresolved" pneumonia where the symptoms do not respond to treatment after a couple of weeks, or in cases where the pneumonia coincides with an abcess or empyema - either of which could have developed after the initial diagnosis of pneumonia and would require surgery to treat. Given that the OP already posted "I do know he had a lung out around that time after constantly coming down with pneumonia - could have been a secondary infection" it seems perfectly reasonable that his dad was admitted with pneumonia and had a lobectomy due to subsequent complications. The following timeline:
1) Goes out on piss, tries to fuck postbox
2) Comes down with pneumonia, admitted to hospital
3) Pneumonia doesn't react to treatment, empyema discovered
4) Thoracotomy/lobectomy to treat empyema
...it's not beyond the realms of possibility, is it?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 2 Mar 2011, 16:14, closed)

I could be wrong
but that is a different kettle of fish, than it being the pnuemonia given by a cold night out on the piss that actually caused it. It just seems unlikely the pnuemonia had anything to do with it, regardless of how many cases he had. Also an abscess is not exactly the 'secondary condition' in this scenario.

Out of interest your 'biomedical library' is definitely jstor isn't it?
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Wed 2 Mar 2011, 18:34, closed)

It's a completely plausible way this could have happened and far from "medically impossible"
...though I appreciate that since the Badger thought of a new section for his archive, he needs to fill it somehow.

An abcess or empyema, either pre-existing or developed after the initial hospitalisation for pneumonia would account for everything given here - the OP themself admitted that they didn't know all the details of the case - but LOL their lung fell out ROLF

No, it's not jstor.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 2 Mar 2011, 22:50, closed)