To be fair, I see this as more necessary in a lot of fields besides surgery where this is basically the norm already.
All surgeons in training are expected to study the procedure and anatomy in depth including videos, the night before any scheduled procedure, and as needed at any point thereafter. And depending where they are in training they will have an attending or senior to demonstrate technique directly during the surgery. And there are always trainees watching. And once they go hands on, again at any point they can be an observer again as the attending takes back over.
The "see one, do one, teach one" model has its weaknesses in my view, and I think we could do more for supervision of procedures in other fields. Certainly many procedures stand up better to mistakes and inexperience and just sort of flailing your way through it. Others not as much.
Note I'm not a surgeon and I'm sure there are lots of instances where even in surgery what I describe above, things don't happen this way. But it was my understanding and what I observed on surgery. I was much more impressed with surgical training than what I saw of procedural teaching in other fields, even procedure heavy fields. The worst was IM which understands itself as being very light in procedures.
The NYT can be very annoying in their reporting on anything medical, particularly if it's not written directly by a medical expert (although this was). It also tends to take on a sensationalist tone like "can you believe doctors are doing/not doing blank!!" When it's somewhat misleading. For example here where surgeons do something that checks these boxes already for the most part.
