Medical ethics?

[zinfamous]

no doctor would recommend this--unless there is some bizarre story attached?

there is nothing about one's genetic history saying that you WILL have a particular cancer, just that your chances may be higher than others'

you may test positive for the gene of interest, and still not develop cancer. there are very many things that will influence the development of cancer. Diet, lifestyle...

This is horrible genetic advice given by a doctor. Although, as someone who works in genetics and has worked at a few hospitals, this would not be the first time a doctor has given horrible (and tragic) genetic advice to a patient.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: 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.

this is not considered legitimate preventative action.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: 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

Knowingly violating medical ethics is malpractice. Is this correct.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
no doctor would recommend this--unless there is some bizarre story attached?

there is nothing about one's genetic history saying that you WILL have a particular cancer, just that your chances may be higher than others'

you may test positive for the gene of interest, and still not develop cancer. there are very many things that will influence the development of cancer. Diet, lifestyle...

This is horrible genetic advice given by a doctor. Although, as someone who works in genetics and has worked at a few hospitals, this would not be the first time a doctor has given horrible (and tragic) genetic advice to a patient.

So you are on the 'unethical' side.Y/N?

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: 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.

What in life is ever guaranteed, especially when you are talking about medical treatment? I think your making your standard ridiculously high just to try to win this argument.

MotionMan

 

[OutHouse]

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

Same reason assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states

wrong. its no different than getting a vasectomy or hysterectomy for birth control

 

[Cellulose]

My distant cousin did exactly this - and had her breasts removed for the same reason - since she had a very high chance of developing cancer. I think some are underestimating the effect of being genetically predisposed to cancer and the increased risk that comes along with (it in certain cases)...

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: 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

Knowingly violating medical ethics is malpractice. Is this correct.

I have never looked at medical ethics as being part of a medical malpractice analysis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Med...5/Medical-ethics-1.htm

MotionMan

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: KK
couldn't the doctor remove the real hooters and put a fake set on?

yes that is what is done. i see sevral women in my massage practice who have had their breast removed, also having the nipple tattooed on after all the expansions and procedures.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: 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.

What in life is ever guaranteed, especially when you are talking about medical treatment? I think your making your standard ridiculously high just to try to win this argument.

MotionMan

Nothing in life is guaranteed excepting death and taxes. Oh and the fact that i consistently get my ass handed to me in ATOT discussions. But i've learned to live with it.

Hey you got me all wrong here. I'm not trying to win anything i just thought it was a good topic.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Its perfectly ethical but stupid.

Just having her mammograms regularly will keep her safe.

are you stupid? a mammogram will show when she HAS CANCER!

so its already too late when the films come back positive.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: 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.

What in life is ever guaranteed, especially when you are talking about medical treatment? I think your making your standard ridiculously high just to try to win this argument.

MotionMan

Nothing in life is guaranteed excepting death and taxes. Oh and the fact that i consistently get my ass handed to me in ATOT discussions. But i've learned to live with it.

Hey you got me all wrong here. I'm not trying to win anything i just thought it was a good topic.

Just playing the Devil's Advocate, are we?

MotionMan

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: KK
couldn't the doctor remove the real hooters and put a fake set on?

yes that is what is done. i see sevral women in my massage practice who have had their breast removed, also having the nipple tattooed on after all the expansions and procedures.

Just for curiousities sake do you have any idea how much all of this would cost?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
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 the doctor thought I had a good reason for doing so, of course. Like maybe I had a 90% chance of developing eye cancer and having them kill me if I didn't get them removed.

If either the patient or the doctor has strong objections to a procedure, ethics become a big issue. If both of them want the procedure, both are well-informed of the risks and benefits, and it's an established medical procedure, I see no issue.

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
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.

Ya think maybe I chose the example of wisdom teeth and appendices, and not healthy eyes, because they are examples of common preventative surgeries, not patient whimsy?:roll:

I assumed that no one would be petty enough to wildly extrapolate my argument to some bizarre set of assumptions that no sane individual would use, and claim that this invalidates my entire train of logic.

Maybe I should append every single assumption to the end of my arguments...something like "Assuming that all the laws of physics hold, this takes place on earth, all characters are human and don't have any exotic deformities, mental conditions, or other complicating factors, the doctor does not perform the surgery blindfolded while doing a kegstand at the same time..."

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: KK
couldn't the doctor remove the real hooters and put a fake set on?

yes that is what is done. i see sevral women in my massage practice who have had their breast removed, also having the nipple tattooed on after all the expansions and procedures.

Just for curiousities sake do you have any idea how much all of this would cost?

no sorry i dont. insurance covered it including the reconstruction of the breast.

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: Greenman
Unnecessary surgery is mutilation.

DOnt tell that to the circumcision crowd

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: Toasthead

Originally posted by: Greenman
Unnecessary surgery is mutilation.

DOnt tell that to the circumcision crowd

The medical community is still split on the benefits v. drawbacks of circumcision, with the anti- crowd gaining some traction in recent years.

MotionMan

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
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 the doctor thought I had a good reason for doing so, of course. Like maybe I had a 90% chance of developing eye cancer and having them kill me if I didn't get them removed.

If either the patient or the doctor has strong objections to a procedure, ethics become a big issue. If both of them want the procedure, both are well-informed of the risks and benefits, and it's an established medical procedure, I see no issue.

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
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.

Ya think maybe I chose the example of wisdom teeth and appendices, and not healthy eyes, because they are examples of common preventative surgeries, not patient whimsy?:roll:

I assumed that no one would be petty enough to wildly extrapolate my argument to some bizarre set of assumptions that no sane individual would use, and claim that this invalidates my entire train of logic.

Maybe I should append every single assumption to the end of my arguments...something like "Assuming that all the laws of physics hold, this takes place on earth, all characters are human and don't have any exotic deformities, mental conditions, or other complicating factors, the doctor does not perform the surgery blindfolded while doing a kegstand at the same time..."

Well you have to admit your statement did imply patient whimsy.

Well i don't think it is sane for any woman to be worried about breast cancer because people in her history have had it. I don't worry about the fact that 2 of my uncles on my mothers side of my family have had heart bypass surgeries and my mother up and died from a massive heart attack with no prior warning. Shit happens.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Toasthead

Originally posted by: Greenman
Unnecessary surgery is mutilation.

DOnt tell that to the circumcision crowd

The medical community is still split on the benefits v. drawbacks of circumcision, with the anti- crowd gaining some traction in recent years.

MotionMan

I'm circumcised, and I don't blame my parents for doing so either. I definitely don't remember it happening, and IMO the decreased risk of hygiene problems is enough to convince me that it's alright. As for grown men getting cut, well, I'm dead against that one 😛

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: KK
couldn't the doctor remove the real hooters and put a fake set on?

yes that is what is done. i see sevral women in my massage practice who have had their breast removed, also having the nipple tattooed on after all the expansions and procedures.

Just for curiousities sake do you have any idea how much all of this would cost?

no sorry i dont. insurance covered it including the reconstruction of the breast.

Hey, as long as they covered replacing their hooters, it's OK. The patient does have to consent to the procedure, and if I had a risk of left nut cancer or something I'd get one of the boys removed and save the other. It's like an A cup getting implants, AND reducing her risk of breast cancer. Two birds, one stone.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Well i don't think it is sane for any woman to be worried about breast cancer because people in her history have had it. I don't worry about the fact that 2 of my uncles on my mothers side of my family have had heart bypass surgeries and my mother up and died from a massive heart attack with no prior warning. Shit happens.

Do you think that the fact that you have no concern for your own well-being should dictate changes in the medical community's ethics or qualifies you to judge the actions of those who follow accepted medical ethics?

How old are you? Married? Children? I would bet under 30, not married, no children.

MotionMan

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Well i don't think it is sane for any woman to be worried about breast cancer because people in her history have had it. I don't worry about the fact that 2 of my uncles on my mothers side of my family have had heart bypass surgeries and my mother up and died from a massive heart attack with no prior warning. Shit happens.

Do you think that the fact that you have no concern for your own well-being should dictate changes in the medical community's ethics or qualifies you to judge the actions of those who follow accepted medical ethics?

How old are you? Married? Children? I would bet under 30, not married, no children.

MotionMan

I'm not trying to change the medical community.

What makes you think i have no concern for my own well being. Because i'm not irrational like some paranoid woman is about her tits getting cancer. What a cop- out on your part.

54, No,No.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Well i don't think it is sane for any woman to be worried about breast cancer because people in her history have had it. I don't worry about the fact that 2 of my uncles on my mothers side of my family have had heart bypass surgeries and my mother up and died from a massive heart attack with no prior warning. Shit happens.

Do you think that the fact that you have no concern for your own well-being should dictate changes in the medical community's ethics or qualifies you to judge the actions of those who follow accepted medical ethics?

How old are you? Married? Children? I would bet under 30, not married, no children.

MotionMan

I'm not trying to change the medical community.

What makes you think i have no concern for my own well being. Because i'm not irrational like some paranoid woman is about her tits getting cancer. What a cop- out on your part.

54, No,No.

I was going to write something about you having no clue about the seriousness of breast cancer, but I wrote the above instead.

The fact that you think a woman with a family history of breast cancer is "paranoid" is really sad. I know a woman who's mother and two sisters died of breast cancer. Do you believe she was paranoid by having a double mastectomy? BTW, she was married and had two young children when she had the surgery. Her sisters left behind four young children.

MotionMan

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Well i don't think it is sane for any woman to be worried about breast cancer because people in her history have had it. I don't worry about the fact that 2 of my uncles on my mothers side of my family have had heart bypass surgeries and my mother up and died from a massive heart attack with no prior warning. Shit happens.

Do you think that the fact that you have no concern for your own well-being should dictate changes in the medical community's ethics or qualifies you to judge the actions of those who follow accepted medical ethics?

How old are you? Married? Children? I would bet under 30, not married, no children.

MotionMan

I'm not trying to change the medical community.

What makes you think i have no concern for my own well being. Because i'm not irrational like some paranoid woman is about her tits getting cancer. What a cop- out on your part.

54, No,No.

I was going to write something about you having no clue about the seriousness of breast cancer, but I wrote the above instead.

The fact that you think a woman with a family history of breast cancer is "paranoid" is really sad. I know a woman who's mother and two sisters died of breast cancer. Do you believe she was paranoid by having a double mastectomy? BTW, she was married and had two young children when she had the surgery. Her sisters left behind four young children.

MotionMan

I heard or read an article that over 500,000 women had breast augmentation surgery last year. These are all sane women, right.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Well i don't think it is sane for any woman to be worried about breast cancer because people in her history have had it. I don't worry about the fact that 2 of my uncles on my mothers side of my family have had heart bypass surgeries and my mother up and died from a massive heart attack with no prior warning. Shit happens.

Do you think that the fact that you have no concern for your own well-being should dictate changes in the medical community's ethics or qualifies you to judge the actions of those who follow accepted medical ethics?

How old are you? Married? Children? I would bet under 30, not married, no children.

MotionMan

I'm not trying to change the medical community.

What makes you think i have no concern for my own well being. Because i'm not irrational like some paranoid woman is about her tits getting cancer. What a cop- out on your part.

54, No,No.

I was going to write something about you having no clue about the seriousness of breast cancer, but I wrote the above instead.

The fact that you think a woman with a family history of breast cancer is "paranoid" is really sad. I know a woman who's mother and two sisters died of breast cancer. Do you believe she was paranoid by having a double mastectomy? BTW, she was married and had two young children when she had the surgery. Her sisters left behind four young children.

MotionMan

I heard or read an article that over 500,000 had breast augmentation last year. These are all sane women, right.

Augmentation ? Prophylactic Mastectomy.

Now you are just sounding like a crackpot.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: MotionMan
The fact that you think a woman with a family history of breast cancer is "paranoid" is really sad. I know a woman who's mother and two sisters died of breast cancer. Do you believe she was paranoid by having a double mastectomy? BTW, she was married and had two young children when she had the surgery. Her sisters left behind four young children.

MotionMan

I heard or read an article that over 500,000 women had breast augmentation surgery last year. These are all sane women, right.

BTW, you did not answer my question.

MotionMan