Medical ethics?

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: dethman
as a physician, all i have to say is that you guys are a bunch of idiots.

All of us? How so?

MotionMan

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: dethman
as a physician, all i have to say is that you guys are a bunch of idiots.

All of us? How so?

MotionMan

I think he was referring to the obviously idiotic group.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: NanoStuff

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: dethman
as a physician, all i have to say is that you guys are a bunch of idiots.

All of us? How so?

MotionMan

I think he was referring to the obviously idiotic group.

I figured it was directed at those who felt it was unethical, but since they (mostly OP) do not see themselves as wrong (i.e. the idiots), I figured they would not realize that it was directed at them. I was hoping for a small clarification, but I understand if dethman does not want to get involved any further.

MotionMan

 

[maxster]

The doctor knows more than you. Chances are if you have the gene you will get the cancer. like 80%. Are you going to risk it? Hah.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

I know a family (Dad's friend) where all the women have had hysterectomies soon after they decided they didn't want any more children. Why? Serious family history of uterine/cervical cancer. It's perfectly legal (and ethical) and the choice lies with the patient.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
I know a family (Dad's friend) where all the women have had hysterectomies soon after they decided they didn't want any more children. Why? Serious family history of uterine/cervical cancer. It's perfectly legal (and ethical) and the choice lies with the patient.

I know a girl who had a hysterectomy for the same reason.

doesn't seem unethical to me and I'd think the same thing about breast removal, assuming the patient had all available information about her options and the doctor didn't tried to strong-arm her one way or the other.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: waggy
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.

Who said she took her surgery lightly? She might have agonized over it for weeks, called all her friends, looked up info on the net, and then gone back to the doctor and said that she wanted to do the procedure.

Plenty of women, confronted with similar options, have said "No, I'd rather keep my breasts and take the risk."

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.

Yeah, that must be why they created the DNR:roll:
And why that Jehovah's Witness boy wasn't forced to undergo a transfusion, even if he was underage and according to the people on this forum "not mentally mature enough to make that decision."

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: DrPizza

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.

So it's unethical to remove healthy wisdom teeth, or a healthy appendix? Even if the patient wants to? That's moronic. It's my body, my decision; you deal with your OWN hunk of flesh.

Did you know that to work in Antarctica, you can't have an appendix? IIRC they added this rule after that well-publicized case of one of their researchers getting appendicitis over the winter, and medical care being almost impossible. So this is unethical? Even if everyone who goes down there is perfectly willing to do so?

 

[mattpegher]

For some women the risk of breast cancer exceeds 80%, which can often be appearant by family history and supported by genetic testing. For these women elective bilateral mastectomy is an option. It is likely that if monitored they would at some point require mastectomy anyway, but they would be risking metastasis (spread) of the cancer and possibility of chemotherapy or radiation therapy, neither of which is without discomfort or risk. The loss of the breasts can even be cosmetically reconstructed. Remember that these women have mostlikely already seen the devistation that breast cancer has wrought on one or more of their family.

Currently this option is the best available for these women, hopefully some day this will not be the case. Cancer remains one of the hardest diseases to diagnose and treat, and for many types truely successfull treatments remain a far distant hope.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: jagec
Did you know that to work in Antarctica, you can't have an appendix? IIRC they added this rule after that well-publicized case of one of their researchers getting appendicitis over the winter, and medical care being almost impossible. So this is unethical? Even if everyone who goes down there is perfectly willing to do so?

I thought she had breast cancer and, ironically, she was the only doctor on-site!

Yep, confirmed:

http://tinyurl.com/2yev2f

MotionMan

 

[TheVrolok]

Sure, I see no problems with it. Obviously insurance won't, and I don't believe should cover the surgery. From an ethics stand point though, I don't see any issue with doing what she wants.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: jagec
Did you know that to work in Antarctica, you can't have an appendix? IIRC they added this rule after that well-publicized case of one of their researchers getting appendicitis over the winter, and medical care being almost impossible. So this is unethical? Even if everyone who goes down there is perfectly willing to do so?

I thought she had breast cancer and, ironically, she was the only doctor on-site!

Yep, confirmed:

http://tinyurl.com/2yev2f

MotionMan

Clearly I did not "RC"😉

 

[alimoalem]

i voted yes, it is ethical. i'm relieved to see the majority agreed.

to those of you saying it's unethical, as others have stated, if she consents to it with complete knowledge of the situation and she is in a stable mental state, how could this possibly be unethical? "what's the chance of getting breast cancer?" "why don't they keep a closer watch on her?" well what if she doesn't want to take the risk of getting cancer?

and it's not like the doctor took a knife to her throat and said "you better do this or else." he simply gave her the option.

also, someone mentioned assisted suicide is medically unethical hence it being illegal in 49 states. um, first, the US isn't great at making perfect laws. second, let me pose a scenario for you. someone truly wants to die and assisted suicide is illegal. they go to a bridge and jump. result: they're a quadriplegic for life. no more chance at attempted to suicide; assisted suicide still not an option; person lives an even more miserable life. i think amsterdam has assisted suicide. the person must go to a psychiatrist or something and be approved for assisted suicide, or something like that. i think they've got it down pretty well.

irishScott, that machete post was beyond stupid. ever get your wisdom teeth pulled out? what if i socked you in the face and knocked a tooth out? your cheek gets cut, big deal? it'll heal. circumcision? oh sure, i do those too. let me get the razor.

 

[Mo0o]

Yes it is ethical. As long as the patient is made fully aware of risks and benefits of doing the procedure and she is willing to do it, it's perfectly ethical. Breasts are not crucial for her survival and their removal isn't compromising the patient's quality of life significantly (obviously only the patient can decide this, but if shes consenting then i would assume she thinks the benefits outweigh the loss) so their removal in an attempt to decrease her risk for developing breast-cancer is an ethical therapy. In some with w/ a family history of breast cancer the risk is ridiculously high. REmoving the breast can improve the quality of life for these women since they will no longr have the prospect of high-risk breast cancer looming over their heads.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: waggy
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.

Who said she took her surgery lightly? She might have agonized over it for weeks, called all her friends, looked up info on the net, and then gone back to the doctor and said that she wanted to do the procedure.

Plenty of women, confronted with similar options, have said "No, I'd rather keep my breasts and take the risk."

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.

Yeah, that must be why they created the DNR:roll:
And why that Jehovah's Witness boy wasn't forced to undergo a transfusion, even if he was underage and according to the people on this forum "not mentally mature enough to make that decision."

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: DrPizza

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.

So it's unethical to remove healthy wisdom teeth, or a healthy appendix? Even if the patient wants to? That's moronic. It's my body, my decision; you deal with your OWN hunk of flesh.

Did you know that to work in Antarctica, you can't have an appendix? IIRC they added this rule after that well-publicized case of one of their researchers getting appendicitis over the winter, and medical care being almost impossible. So this is unethical? Even if everyone who goes down there is perfectly willing to do so?

So if you walked into your doctors office and asked your doctor to remove your eyes because you were sick of them and didn't want them anymore, it would be perfectly ethical for your doctor to bid your request?

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: waggy
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.

Who said she took her surgery lightly? She might have agonized over it for weeks, called all her friends, looked up info on the net, and then gone back to the doctor and said that she wanted to do the procedure.

Plenty of women, confronted with similar options, have said "No, I'd rather keep my breasts and take the risk."

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.

Yeah, that must be why they created the DNR:roll:
And why that Jehovah's Witness boy wasn't forced to undergo a transfusion, even if he was underage and according to the people on this forum "not mentally mature enough to make that decision."

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: DrPizza

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.

So it's unethical to remove healthy wisdom teeth, or a healthy appendix? Even if the patient wants to? That's moronic. It's my body, my decision; you deal with your OWN hunk of flesh.

Did you know that to work in Antarctica, you can't have an appendix? IIRC they added this rule after that well-publicized case of one of their researchers getting appendicitis over the winter, and medical care being almost impossible. So this is unethical? Even if everyone who goes down there is perfectly willing to do so?

So if you walked into your doctors office and asked your doctor to remove your eyes because you were sick of them and didn't want them anymore, it would be perfectly ethical for your doctor to bid your request?

"If you were sick of them" is not a medically valid reason for such surgery (excluding for the purposes of this discussion otherwise medically-appropriate plastic surgery).

The serious complications from problems associated with wisdom teeth and appendix are worth the minor risks of the surgery to remove those items.

Now, if your family had a history of terminal eye cancer and THAT was why you wanted them removed, then that could be ethical.

MotionMan

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
TooManyBeers, I'ved watched this thread and I can now say that changing your thread title was a ball-less, coward thing to do. What happened, did your dick shrink and suddenly you became afraid of all the PWNAGE which has been happening?

FWIW, he posted malpractice, originally. You are truely a moron of epic proportions.

I made a mistake when i wrote the original title,big deal ,i meant ethical on the part of the doctor.And i think once that was sorted out the thread moved along fine.

And no my dick did not shrink,and just for that Take This:

Your an Ugly Loser and i hope my calling you that hurts you to your sole, makes you want to kill yourself, and you bawl allnight.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: n7
OP...wow.

Just wow.

Fantastic response. You've added immeasurably to the quality of this thread. Excellent work.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
TooManyBeers, I'ved watched this thread and I can now say that changing your thread title was a ball-less, coward thing to do. What happened, did your dick shrink and suddenly you became afraid of all the PWNAGE which has been happening?

FWIW, he posted malpractice, originally. You are truely a moron of epic proportions.

I made a mistake when i wrote the original title,big deal ,i meant ethical on the part of the doctor.And i think once that was sorted out the thread moved along fine.

It is telling that, at least initially, you equated malpractice with medical ethics.

I think you are trying to impose your personal ethics on the medical community. Medical ethics is a complicated thing. The whole "Do no harm" thing is as much as a mine field as the Prime Directive 😉

MotionMan

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: alimoalem
i voted yes, it is ethical. i'm relieved to see the majority agreed.

to those of you saying it's unethical, as others have stated, if she consents to it with complete knowledge of the situation and she is in a stable mental state, how could this possibly be unethical? "what's the chance of getting breast cancer?" "why don't they keep a closer watch on her?" well what if she doesn't want to take the risk of getting cancer?

and it's not like the doctor took a knife to her throat and said "you better do this or else." he simply gave her the option.

also, someone mentioned assisted suicide is medically unethical hence it being illegal in 49 states. um, first, the US isn't great at making perfect laws. second, let me pose a scenario for you. someone truly wants to die and assisted suicide is illegal. they go to a bridge and jump. result: they're a quadriplegic for life. no more chance at attempted to suicide; assisted suicide still not an option; person lives an even more miserable life. i think amsterdam has assisted suicide. the person must go to a psychiatrist or something and be approved for assisted suicide, or something like that. i think they've got it down pretty well.

irishScott, that machete post was beyond stupid. ever get your wisdom teeth pulled out? what if i socked you in the face and knocked a tooth out? your cheek gets cut, big deal? it'll heal. circumcision? oh sure, i do those too. let me get the razor.

The difference between assisted suicide and breast removal is that assisted suicide comes with a guarantee i.e. you will be dead. Breast removal comes with no guarantee.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
The difference between assisted suicide and breast removal is that assisted suicide comes with a guarantee i.e. you will be dead. Breast removal comes with no guarantee.

No, the difference is that one is meant to kill you and the other is meant to save you from death.

MotionMan

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: waggy
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.

Who said she took her surgery lightly? She might have agonized over it for weeks, called all her friends, looked up info on the net, and then gone back to the doctor and said that she wanted to do the procedure.

Plenty of women, confronted with similar options, have said "No, I'd rather keep my breasts and take the risk."

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.

Yeah, that must be why they created the DNR:roll:
And why that Jehovah's Witness boy wasn't forced to undergo a transfusion, even if he was underage and according to the people on this forum "not mentally mature enough to make that decision."

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: DrPizza

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.

.

Did you know that to work in Antarctica, you can't have an appendix? IIRC they added this rule after that well-publicized case of one of their researchers getting appendicitis over the winter, and medical care being almost impossible. So this is unethical? Even if everyone who goes down there is perfectly willing to do so?

So if you walked into your doctors office and asked your doctor to remove your eyes because you were sick of them and didn't want them anymore, it would be perfectly ethical for your doctor to bid your request?

"If you were sick of them" is not a medically valid reason for such surgery (excluding for the purposes of this discussion otherwise medically-appropriate plastic surgery).

The serious complications from problems associated with wisdom teeth and appendix are worth the minor risks of the surgery to remove those items.

Now, if your family had a history of terminal eye cancer and THAT was why you wanted them removed, then that could be ethical.

MotionMan

Hold it MotionMan, in his example he specifically states:
So it's unethical to remove healthy wisdom teeth, or a healthy appendix? Even if the patient wants to? That's moronic. It's my body, my decision; you deal with your OWN hunk of flesh. Is 'even if the patient wants to' a valid medical reason. In fact in no part of his statement is there a valid medical reason for removing the teeth or appendix.

It sounds to me that in my example as stated that you agree that it would be unethical for a doctor to remove my eyes.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: waggy
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.

Who said she took her surgery lightly? She might have agonized over it for weeks, called all her friends, looked up info on the net, and then gone back to the doctor and said that she wanted to do the procedure.

Plenty of women, confronted with similar options, have said "No, I'd rather keep my breasts and take the risk."

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.

Yeah, that must be why they created the DNR:roll:
And why that Jehovah's Witness boy wasn't forced to undergo a transfusion, even if he was underage and according to the people on this forum "not mentally mature enough to make that decision."

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: DrPizza

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.

.

Did you know that to work in Antarctica, you can't have an appendix? IIRC they added this rule after that well-publicized case of one of their researchers getting appendicitis over the winter, and medical care being almost impossible. So this is unethical? Even if everyone who goes down there is perfectly willing to do so?

So if you walked into your doctors office and asked your doctor to remove your eyes because you were sick of them and didn't want them anymore, it would be perfectly ethical for your doctor to bid your request?

"If you were sick of them" is not a medically valid reason for such surgery (excluding for the purposes of this discussion otherwise medically-appropriate plastic surgery).

The serious complications from problems associated with wisdom teeth and appendix are worth the minor risks of the surgery to remove those items.

Now, if your family had a history of terminal eye cancer and THAT was why you wanted them removed, then that could be ethical.

MotionMan

Hold it MotionMan, in his example he specifically states:
So it's unethical to remove healthy wisdom teeth, or a healthy appendix? Even if the patient wants to? That's moronic. It's my body, my decision; you deal with your OWN hunk of flesh. Is 'even if the patient wants to' a valid medical reason. In fact in no part of his statement is there a valid medical reason for removing the teeth or appendix.

It sounds to me that in my example as stated that you agree that it would be unethical for a doctor to remove my eyes.

Maybe I did not read his statement that closely, but it does not change my opinion:

It is unethical for the doctor to remove your eyes because "you are sick of them". It is not unethical to remove wisdom teeth, an appendix or even your eyes if, in the doctor's and patient's informed opinion, the surgery would be a medically-valid method to prevent a likely greater harm in the future (impacted wisdom teeth, burst appendix or lethally-cancerous eyes).

MotionMan

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
TooManyBeers, I'ved watched this thread and I can now say that changing your thread title was a ball-less, coward thing to do. What happened, did your dick shrink and suddenly you became afraid of all the PWNAGE which has been happening?

FWIW, he posted malpractice, originally. You are truely a moron of epic proportions.

I made a mistake when i wrote the original title,big deal ,i meant ethical on the part of the doctor.And i think once that was sorted out the thread moved along fine.

It is telling that, at least initially, you equated malpractice with medical ethics.

I think you are trying to impose your personal ethics on the medical community. Medical ethics is a complicated thing. The whole "Do no harm" thing is as much as a mine field as the Prime Directive 😉

MotionMan

I know the two have different meanings. Ethics in my opinion would be close to what is morally right. Malpractice is more related to negligence whether deliberate or accidental. Is this close?

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
TooManyBeers, I'ved watched this thread and I can now say that changing your thread title was a ball-less, coward thing to do. What happened, did your dick shrink and suddenly you became afraid of all the PWNAGE which has been happening?

FWIW, he posted malpractice, originally. You are truely a moron of epic proportions.

I made a mistake when i wrote the original title,big deal ,i meant ethical on the part of the doctor.And i think once that was sorted out the thread moved along fine.

It is telling that, at least initially, you equated malpractice with medical ethics.

I think you are trying to impose your personal ethics on the medical community. Medical ethics is a complicated thing. The whole "Do no harm" thing is as much as a mine field as the Prime Directive 😉

MotionMan

I know the two have different meanings. Ethics in my opinion would be close to what is morally right. Malpractice is more related to negligence whether deliberate or accidental. Is this close?

Maybe that is your problem re: morals v. ethics:

Values, morals and ethics defined


Negligence is always "accidental". "Deliberate" actions are not negligent - they are "intentional".

MotionMan

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
The difference between assisted suicide and breast removal is that assisted suicide comes with a guarantee i.e. you will be dead. Breast removal comes with no guarantee.

No, the difference is that one is meant to kill you and the other is meant to save you from death.

MotionMan

My statement is accurate. You said yourself breast removal is "meant" to save you from death but does not "guarantee" it italics mine. Anyways i was just trying to point out the difference in his example.