There's definitely a question to be had, depending on the non-operable chances of the person and the availability of surgeons, whether it is worse to have one sleepy surgeon do more work at greater the risk or a fewer surgery at a lower risk.
I am very sorry about your father. I guess my question would be, given our shortage of surgeons, would we be better off if they did less surgery with the tradeoff of lower per-surgery deaths but greater deaths from waiting too long / never / rising unaffordable prices due to scarcity. This seems like a case of an awful reality where some individuals die due to even greater shortage of surgeons or fewer die from shortage but more die due to lack of sleep/etc. The answer is clear at your individual level, less clear at the population level.
To be clear, I'm not saying that was a good representation of the tradeoff in your family. But it did seem to become a real problem of tradeoffs during COVID when medical personnel were overworked. It definitely takes a certain kind of personality to make peace with "I can operate on two people who are do-or-die today and save an average of 0.8 of the two of them, or operate on one person today and save an average of 0.6 of the two of them." You'd have to go in knowing the population is better off while the per-surgery stat is worse off...
