Medical ethics?

[waggy]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

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.

No. The only thing this procedure guarantees is she can't get breast cancer because she no longer has breasts.

actually that is wrong also. removing the breast does not gurntee that a pwerson will not get breast cancer (there is small amount of "breast"). but it does greatly reduce the chance.

Ok fine you want to nitpick me. Your are unwittingly on my side because even with doing a radical mastectomy these women can still get cancer in ohther parts of their bodies.

i don't think you are getting what i am saying. they can't remove 100% of the breast. there is still a chance that a person will get BREAST CANCER even after a precedure like this. BUT it is very very small.


I AM NOT talking about any other part of her body just her breast.

Ok fine. So based on what you have just stated do you think the procedure is Ethical?

as i said i feel they should try other stuff before they go into something as bad as cutting off her breast. surgery should be the very last thing tried.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

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.

No. The only thing this procedure guarantees is she can't get breast cancer because she no longer has breasts.

actually that is wrong also. removing the breast does not gurntee that a pwerson will not get breast cancer (there is small amount of "breast"). but it does greatly reduce the chance.

Ok fine you want to nitpick me. Your are unwittingly on my side because even with doing a radical mastectomy these women can still get cancer in ohther parts of their bodies.

i don't think you are getting what i am saying. they can't remove 100% of the breast. there is still a chance that a person will get BREAST CANCER even after a precedure like this. BUT it is very very small.


I AM NOT talking about any other part of her body just her breast.

Ok fine. So based on what you have just stated do you think the procedure is Ethical?

I think doing such a thing to protect one's self against the high certainty of getting the cancer IS ethical.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

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.

No. The only thing this procedure guarantees is she can't get breast cancer because she no longer has breasts.

actually that is wrong also. removing the breast does not gurntee that a pwerson will not get breast cancer (there is small amount of "breast"). but it does greatly reduce the chance.

Ok fine you want to nitpick me. Your are unwittingly on my side because even with doing a radical mastectomy these women can still get cancer in ohther parts of their bodies.

i don't think you are getting what i am saying. they can't remove 100% of the breast. there is still a chance that a person will get BREAST CANCER even after a precedure like this. BUT it is very very small.


I AM NOT talking about any other part of her body just her breast.

Ok fine. So based on what you have just stated do you think the procedure is Ethical?

as i said i feel they should try other stuff before they go into something as bad as cutting off her breast. surgery should be the very last thing tried.

So you're 'on the fence' so to speak.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: waggy

as i said i feel they should try other stuff before they go into something as bad as cutting off her breast. surgery should be the very last thing tried.

What "other stuff" should they try when there is no present indication of anything wrong other than a family history of breast cancer?

Prophylactic Mastectomies are used when the risk (family history) is high, mortality (in the other family members) is high and "monitoring" is decided to be an unacceptable risk.

MotionMan

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Its perfectly ethical but stupid.

Just having her mammograms regularly will keep her safe.

no it won't mammograms are far from a perfect science.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: waggy

as i said i feel they should try other stuff before they go into something as bad as cutting off her breast. surgery should be the very last thing tried.

What "other stuff" should they try when there is no present indication of anything wrong other than a family history of breast cancer?

Prophylactic Mastectomies are used when the risk (family history) is high, mortality (in the other family members) is high and "monitoring" is decided to be an unacceptable risk.

MotionMan

thats nice. i still think that it should be a final opton. AGAIN that is my opionion. i think sergury should be a final option not taken so damn lightly.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Its perfectly ethical but stupid.

Just having her mammograms regularly will keep her safe.

QFT. Who the hell would do that to themselves?

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Its perfectly ethical but stupid.

Just having her mammograms regularly will keep her safe.

no it won't mammograms are far from a perfect science.

So is removing perfectly healthy breasts not a perfect science. There is no guarantee.

 

[Slew Foot]

If she's informed of her choices, and that's the choice she makes, than it's 100% perfectly acceptable.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
If she's informed of her choices, and that's the choice she makes, than it's 100% perfectly acceptable.

Again this thread doesn't really concern the patients but the doctors actions. Specifically is removing womens perfectly healthy breasts in an attempt to prevent possible cancer outbreak Ethical on the part of the doctors?

 

[Auggie]

Up near the top, saying that this voluntary mastectomy is akin to chopping off honkers with a machete is like saying rape with a jagged broomstick is akin to having sex.

I wouldn't really consider removing a mole before it gets cancerous to be a bad idea, nor would removing part of a breast that's likely to get cancer be incredibly terrible. My gut reactions is that this is fine.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Its perfectly ethical but stupid.

Just having her mammograms regularly will keep her safe.

no it won't mammograms are far from a perfect science.

So is removing perfectly healthy breasts not a perfect science. There is no guarantee.

When you have a strong family history of breast cancer,removing the breasts as a preventative measure is perfectly reasonable.

Also,you need to remember most women opting for preventative masectomies are middle aged when the risk of being dx with cancer rapidly rises.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: waggy

as i said i feel they should try other stuff before they go into something as bad as cutting off her breast. surgery should be the very last thing tried.

What "other stuff" should they try when there is no present indication of anything wrong other than a family history of breast cancer?

Prophylactic Mastectomies are used when the risk (family history) is high, mortality (in the other family members) is high and "monitoring" is decided to be an unacceptable risk.

MotionMan

Under the conditions cited in your own post and bolded, why would anybody do anything at all?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
If she's informed of her choices, and that's the choice she makes, than it's 100% perfectly acceptable.

Again this thread doesn't really concern the patients but the doctors actions. Specifically is removing womens perfectly healthy breasts in an attempt to prevent possible cancer outbreak Ethical on the part of the doctors?

The American Medical Association says YES.

In fact, the entire American medical community says YES.

Every single HMO in this country says YES.

Every single hospital in America has an active ETHICS BOARD. Every single one of them says YES.

Please inform yourself. 😕

 

[ktehmok]

As long as the hospital got paid then who cares? The medical industry gets it cut, no harm, no foul right? It's the same reason they made it illegal to refuse medical assistance for yourself or someone else. They have to get their cut from billing every medical procedure. We can't have people willing to die when there is good money to be made off of them.

Leeches.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
If she's informed of her choices, and that's the choice she makes, than it's 100% perfectly acceptable.

Again this thread doesn't really concern the patients but the doctors actions. Specifically is removing womens perfectly healthy breasts in an attempt to prevent possible cancer outbreak Ethical on the part of the doctors?

The American Medical Association says YES.

In fact, the entire American medical community says YES.

Every single HMO in this country says YES.

Every single hospital in America has an active ETHICS BOARD. Every single one of them says YES.

Please inform yourself. 😕

The thread is asking for opinions. Render yours and move on.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
If she's informed of her choices, and that's the choice she makes, than it's 100% perfectly acceptable.

Again this thread doesn't really concern the patients but the doctors actions. Specifically is removing womens perfectly healthy breasts in an attempt to prevent possible cancer outbreak Ethical on the part of the doctors?

The American Medical Association says YES.

In fact, the entire American medical community says YES.

Every single HMO in this country says YES.

Every single hospital in America has an active ETHICS BOARD. Every single one of them says YES.

Please inform yourself. 😕

The thread is asking for opinions. Render yours and move on.

You stated that the answer YES was just my opinion. In that, as with everything else you've said in this thread, you are WRONG.

Here is your statement:

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Deeko
I think people here are just reading into this wrong.

You can disagree with the decision. You can disagree with the advice. However, it is very clearly NOT malpractice.

I didn't say it was malpractice i asked if the doctors actions are ethical.

And the answer, very clearly, is YES.

For you it is.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: MotionMan
The beauty of being ignorant is that once you become educated, you can change your opinion to match the facts. If you fail to do that, you are shown to be an idiot or a troll.
MotionMan

(Or President of the U.S.) 😛

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Again this thread doesn't really concern the patients but the doctors actions. Specifically is removing womens perfectly healthy breasts in an attempt to prevent possible cancer outbreak Ethical on the part of the doctors?

Is the removal of a perfectly healthy appendix ethical? Is the removal of perfectly healthy wisdom teeth ethical? How about any cosmetic surgeries?

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: MotionMan
The beauty of being ignorant is that once you become educated, you can change your opinion to match the facts. If you fail to do that, you are shown to be an idiot or a troll.
MotionMan

(Or President of the U.S.) 😛

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Again this thread doesn't really concern the patients but the doctors actions. Specifically is removing womens perfectly healthy breasts in an attempt to prevent possible cancer outbreak Ethical on the part of the doctors?

Is the removal of a perfectly healthy appendix ethical? Is the removal of perfectly healthy wisdom teeth ethical? How about any cosmetic surgeries?

I'm not sure whose side your on but cosmetic surgery does not purport to keep someone from getting a disease. So that isn't really relevent to this discussion. As for an appendix or wisdom teeth , no. Why remove them if they are healthy.

 

[warmodder]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: waggy

as i said i feel they should try other stuff before they go into something as bad as cutting off her breast. surgery should be the very last thing tried.

What "other stuff" should they try when there is no present indication of anything wrong other than a family history of breast cancer?

Prophylactic Mastectomies are used when the risk (family history) is high, mortality (in the other family members) is high and "monitoring" is decided to be an unacceptable risk.

MotionMan

Under the conditions cited in your own post and bolded, why would anybody do anything at all?

Because genetic tests are a reliable indicator of future cancerous growth. Honesty dude you're dumb as fucking nails.

 

[fbrdphreak]

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.

You are an idiot.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: warmodder

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: waggy

as i said i feel they should try other stuff before they go into something as bad as cutting off her breast. surgery should be the very last thing tried.

What "other stuff" should they try when there is no present indication of anything wrong other than a family history of breast cancer?

Prophylactic Mastectomies are used when the risk (family history) is high, mortality (in the other family members) is high and "monitoring" is decided to be an unacceptable risk.

MotionMan

Under the conditions cited in your own post and bolded, why would anybody do anything at all?

Because genetic tests are a reliable indicator of future cancerous growth. Honesty dude you're dumb as fucking nails.

You crossed the line: Take this;

Ugly Loser: I hope my calling you that hurts you to your sole, makes you want to kill yourself, and you bawl alnight long.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: ktehmok
As long as the hospital got paid then who cares? The medical industry gets it cut, no harm, no foul right? It's the same reason they made it illegal to refuse medical assistance for yourself or someone else. They have to get their cut from billing every medical procedure. We can't have people willing to die when there is good money to be made off of them.

Leeches.

Wow you're an idiot. Look up Against Medical Advice (AMA), you can refuse any treatment you want. Heck, look up Do Not Resuscitate/Intubate as well.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: warmodder

Originally posted by: 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.

Psychological issues? You mean like the will to live? I'm glad we have you around to know what's best for everyone!

Will to live? If your family had history of death due to testicular cancer, would you cut your balls off as a "preventative measure"?

People who are psychologically unfit to make their own decisions do not have the same rights as normal people. There's a reason minors can't do a lot of stuff without a signed form from their guardian.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Will to live? If your family had history of death due to testicular cancer, would you cut your balls off as a "preventative measure"?

People who are psychologically unfit to make their own decisions do not have the same rights as normal people. There's a reason minors can't do a lot of stuff without a signed form from their guardian.

You know, I f was done having kids and I had a bunch of family die of nut cancer, I just might. Taking Testosterone shots>>>>> chemo/radiation.