Medical ethics?

[ManyBeers]

....after undergoing genetic screening for breast cancer that she has according to her families history a propensity to get cancer. On her doctors recommendation she decides to have her currently healthy breasts removed in hopes that this will prevent her from acquiring the disease.
She is perfectly healthy in all respects and yet the doctor removes her breasts in a double mastectomy procedure.


Disclaimer concerning title: Sorry about that confusion. I meant this discussion to revolve around the ethics of the procedures and not legal

 

[irishScott]

No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

 

[OrganizedChaos]

I'm sure she'd feel pretty stupid if they developed a cure 6 months later.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: irishScott
No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

She wasn't harmed though...

 

[Acanthus]

It is not illegal, my mother had the same procedure due to genetic testing shortly after my grandmother died of cancer.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott
No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

She wasn't harmed though...

So if I ambushed her in an ally the day before the surgery, and cut off her breasts with a machete (think Rwanda), assuming she gets rushed to the hospital and survives without a hitch, did I harm her?

Same net result as her getting them removed... excluding emotional damage.

 

[Greenman]

Unnecessary surgery is mutilation.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Greenman
Unnecessary surgery is mutilation.

QFT!

it is not ethical and if the doctor tells someone to do this then they should be removed from practice.

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott
No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

She wasn't harmed though...

So if I ambushed her in an ally the day before the surgery, and cut off her breasts with a machete (think Rwanda), assuming she gets rushed to the hospital and survives without a hitch, did I harm her?

Same net result as her getting them removed... excluding emotional damage.

...

those are two totally different situations. in the OP, she was totally aware of what was happening, and had an option of saying yes or no. She also was aware of the risks of doing it and not doing it and made what i assume a educated decision. also, the doctor was fully trained and knew what he/she was doing.

She also had the full option of saying no. If she said no, its not like the doctor would kidnap her and do it anyways.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott
No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

She wasn't harmed though...

So if I ambushed her in an ally the day before the surgery, and cut off her breasts with a machete (think Rwanda), assuming she gets rushed to the hospital and survives without a hitch, did I harm her?

Same net result as her getting them removed... excluding emotional damage.

Can I nominate this as the dumbest post made today?

Sure it's the same NET RESULT, but it's hardly even close to being the same thing.

 

[warmodder]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott
No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

She wasn't harmed though...

So if I ambushed her in an ally the day before the surgery, and cut off her breasts with a machete (think Rwanda), assuming she gets rushed to the hospital and survives without a hitch, did I harm her?

Same net result as her getting them removed... excluding emotional damage.

Um, she consented to the procedure. Why would it be malpractice? It's a legitimate preventative measure.

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: warmodder

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott
No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

She wasn't harmed though...

So if I ambushed her in an ally the day before the surgery, and cut off her breasts with a machete (think Rwanda), assuming she gets rushed to the hospital and survives without a hitch, did I harm her?

Same net result as her getting them removed... excluding emotional damage.

Um, she consented to the procedure. Why would it be malpractice? It's a legitimate preventative measure.

QFT.

 

[altonb1]

Originally posted by: Greenman
Unnecessary surgery is mutilation.

Should we bring up the circumcision debate now?

I didn't think so...

/puts flame retardant suit on

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Greenman
Unnecessary surgery is mutilation.

Plastic surgery?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: warmodder

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott
No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

She wasn't harmed though...

So if I ambushed her in an ally the day before the surgery, and cut off her breasts with a machete (think Rwanda), assuming she gets rushed to the hospital and survives without a hitch, did I harm her?

Same net result as her getting them removed... excluding emotional damage.

Um, she consented to the procedure. Why would it be malpractice? It's a legitimate preventative measure.

legitimate? i don't think so. she has a possiblity of getting cancer. it is not a gurenteed. to remove her breast is a huge mental and physical issue. not to mention that is no gurentee that she won't get cancer latter anyway.

they should have just kept closer eye on her. have regular visits to the doctor. to cut off part of the body for no reason is unethical.

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: warmodder

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott
No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

She wasn't harmed though...

So if I ambushed her in an ally the day before the surgery, and cut off her breasts with a machete (think Rwanda), assuming she gets rushed to the hospital and survives without a hitch, did I harm her?

Same net result as her getting them removed... excluding emotional damage.

Um, she consented to the procedure. Why would it be malpractice? It's a legitimate preventative measure.

legitimate? i don't think so. she has a possiblity of getting cancer. it is not a gurenteed. to remove her breast is a huge mental and physical issue. not to mention that is no gurentee that she won't get cancer latter anyway.

they should have just kept closer eye on her. have regular visits to the doctor. to cut off part of the body for no reason is unethical.

There is a reason. to reduce the RISK of getting cancer. and she consented to the procedure.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: warmodder

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott
No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

She wasn't harmed though...

So if I ambushed her in an ally the day before the surgery, and cut off her breasts with a machete (think Rwanda), assuming she gets rushed to the hospital and survives without a hitch, did I harm her?

Same net result as her getting them removed... excluding emotional damage.

Um, she consented to the procedure. Why would it be malpractice? It's a legitimate preventative measure.

legitimate? i don't think so. she has a possiblity of getting cancer. it is not a gurenteed. to remove her breast is a huge mental and physical issue. not to mention that is no gurentee that she won't get cancer latter anyway.

they should have just kept closer eye on her. have regular visits to the doctor. to cut off part of the body for no reason is unethical.

There is a reason. to reduce the RISK of getting cancer. and she consented to the procedure.

there are also far less risky and phsyicaly/emmotionaly risky ways to watch for cancer. IF (there is no gurentee it will show up) it shows up then you can go to such way s to fight it.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
It is not illegal, my mother had the same procedure due to genetic testing shortly after my grandmother died of cancer.

I wish your mother could come in here and talk to the rabble. I am appalled at the poll results and many of the idiot replies here.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott
No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

She wasn't harmed though...

So if I ambushed her in an ally the day before the surgery, and cut off her breasts with a machete (think Rwanda), assuming she gets rushed to the hospital and survives without a hitch, did I harm her?

Same net result as her getting them removed... excluding emotional damage.

Can I nominate this as the dumbest post made today?

Sure it's the same NET RESULT, but it's hardly even close to being the same thing.

Yeah, I rather agree. That was not so well thought out.

 

[warmodder]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: warmodder

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott
No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

She wasn't harmed though...

So if I ambushed her in an ally the day before the surgery, and cut off her breasts with a machete (think Rwanda), assuming she gets rushed to the hospital and survives without a hitch, did I harm her?

Same net result as her getting them removed... excluding emotional damage.

Um, she consented to the procedure. Why would it be malpractice? It's a legitimate preventative measure.

legitimate? i don't think so. she has a possiblity of getting cancer. it is not a gurenteed. to remove her breast is a huge mental and physical issue. not to mention that is no gurentee that she won't get cancer latter anyway.

they should have just kept closer eye on her. have regular visits to the doctor. to cut off part of the body for no reason is unethical.

There is a reason. to reduce the RISK of getting cancer. and she consented to the procedure.

there are also far less risky and phsyicaly/emmotionaly risky ways to watch for cancer. IF (there is no gurentee it will show up) it shows up then you can go to such way s to fight it.

Most doctors will agree that preventative action is far more effective than treatment in combating disease.

 

[Deeko]

How do you guys know her family didn't have a history of deaths from breast cancer? Obviously these test results confirmed that. Maybe she decided she'd rather live her life without breasts (which isn't all that bad), rather than have a high risk of death. Even when caught early, today's cancer treatments aren't 100%.

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: warmodder

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott
No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

She wasn't harmed though...

So if I ambushed her in an ally the day before the surgery, and cut off her breasts with a machete (think Rwanda), assuming she gets rushed to the hospital and survives without a hitch, did I harm her?

Same net result as her getting them removed... excluding emotional damage.

Um, she consented to the procedure. Why would it be malpractice? It's a legitimate preventative measure.

legitimate? i don't think so. she has a possiblity of getting cancer. it is not a gurenteed. to remove her breast is a huge mental and physical issue. not to mention that is no gurentee that she won't get cancer latter anyway.

they should have just kept closer eye on her. have regular visits to the doctor. to cut off part of the body for no reason is unethical.

There is a reason. to reduce the RISK of getting cancer. and she consented to the procedure.

there are also far less risky and phsyicaly/emmotionaly risky ways to watch for cancer. IF (there is no gurentee it will show up) it shows up then you can go to such way s to fight it.

but she decided instead of taking the risk of cancer showing up and having to go through treatment, she will perform sugurgy to reduce the risk by what i assume a large ammount. again, its her choice. The doctor is not at fault here.

 

[Corporate Thug]

to duty owed to a patient is the standard of care of any doctor in the field so the answer is largely dependent on whether other doctors consider this treatment reasonable.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: thecrecarc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: warmodder

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott
No. Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

She wasn't harmed though...

So if I ambushed her in an ally the day before the surgery, and cut off her breasts with a machete (think Rwanda), assuming she gets rushed to the hospital and survives without a hitch, did I harm her?

Same net result as her getting them removed... excluding emotional damage.

Um, she consented to the procedure. Why would it be malpractice? It's a legitimate preventative measure.

legitimate? i don't think so. she has a possiblity of getting cancer. it is not a gurenteed. to remove her breast is a huge mental and physical issue. not to mention that is no gurentee that she won't get cancer latter anyway.

they should have just kept closer eye on her. have regular visits to the doctor. to cut off part of the body for no reason is unethical.

There is a reason. to reduce the RISK of getting cancer. and she consented to the procedure.

there are also far less risky and phsyicaly/emmotionaly risky ways to watch for cancer. IF (there is no gurentee it will show up) it shows up then you can go to such way s to fight it.

but she decided instead of taking the risk of cancer showing up and having to go through treatment, she will perform sugurgy to reduce the risk by what i assume a large ammount. again, its her choice. The doctor is not at fault here.

Like waggy said, there are other, far less damaging options to try first. Also, anyone willing to go that far has psychological issues that need to be addressed. Period. That makes her unable to know what's best for her.

 

[MotionMan]

It is neither unethical nor malpractice (i.e. medical negligence).

Removing the breasts of healthy women with a family history of breast cancer is an accepted practice.

BTW, I am a lawyer who use to specialize in medical malpractice (I am not giving legal advice here, however)

MotionMan, Esq.