Why do doctors refuse to operate on certain patients?

[manlymatt83]

Seriously, I am watching a show right now where someone was given two weeks to live unless they had surgery, and no doctor would do the surgery because it was "too risky".

Why not? They won't get in trouble if they fail, will they?

 

[ManBearPig]

itll look bad on their records

 

[Random Variable]

fear of getting sued for malpractice

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: mjuszczak
Seriously, I am watching a show right now where someone was given two weeks to live unless they had surgery, and no doctor would do the surgery because it was "too risky".

Why not? They won't get in trouble if they fail, will they?

People think doctors should be held the standards of a god....even if they don't believe in god. If they perform the operation and the patient dies they end up getting sued. Since the patient is going to die anyway it is better for the doctor to let nature take it's course.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

You take an impossible case, the patient dies, family in all their grief might try to sue you.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: OVerLoRDI
You take an impossible case, the patient dies, family in all their grief might try to sue you.

Can't they sign a waiver?

 

[RbSX]

Because sometimes operating on someone just delays the inevitable, for example

An obese over-eating smoker needs triple bypass surgery but this person refuses to quit smoking, and doesn't change their eating habits.

They will die, if not 3 months from now, 6 months from now or a year from now.

Instead they should spend those resources on people that will actually contribute.

The best healthcare comes from self maitenance, if you need surgery for something that could have been prevented by eating better.. I have little sympathy.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: RyanSengara
Because sometimes operating on someone just delays the inevitable, for example

An obese over-eating smoker needs triple bypass surgery but this person refuses to quit smoking, and doesn't change their eating habits.

They will die, if not 3 months from now, 6 months from now or a year from now.

Instead they should spend those resources on people that will actually contribute.

The best healthcare comes from self maitenance, if you need surgery for something that could have been prevented by eating better.. I have little sympathy.

The question is.... what about the kid I just saw on TV who was three, having strokes, was going to die in two weeks if she wasn't operated on, but people thought it was too risky?

 

[darkswordsman17]

What show were you watching exactly, OP?

 

[Killerme33]

Maybe the procedure is more risky then the ailment?

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
What show were you watching exactly, OP?

Some show on Discovery Health

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: RyanSengara
Because sometimes operating on someone just delays the inevitable, for example

An obese over-eating smoker needs triple bypass surgery but this person refuses to quit smoking, and doesn't change their eating habits.

They will die, if not 3 months from now, 6 months from now or a year from now.

Instead they should spend those resources on people that will actually contribute.

The best healthcare comes from self maitenance, if you need surgery for something that could have been prevented by eating better.. I have little sympathy.

And if you ever need surgery because you fell off your high horse, I'll have little sympathy too. :roll:

 

[Conky]

I don't know what that's about. A few months ago I watched my dad get cut open by highly skilled doctors to diagnose his ailment and yet they were able to do nothing for him after that. Probably the filthy insurance companies who would rather let people die than allow expensive operations.

They didn't want to try and fix his problem with surgery. I really wish they had. I miss my dad way more than I thought I would... he was the coolest.

 

[Alone]

Originally posted by: Conky
I don't know what that's about. A few months ago I watched my dad get cut open by highly skilled doctors to diagnose his ailment and yet they were able to do nothing for him after that. Probably the filthy insurance companies who would rather let people die than allow expensive operations.

They didn't want to try and fix his problem with surgery. I really wish they had. I miss my dad way more than I thought I would... he was the coolest.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: RyanSengara
Because sometimes operating on someone just delays the inevitable, for example

An obese over-eating smoker needs triple bypass surgery but this person refuses to quit smoking, and doesn't change their eating habits.

They will die, if not 3 months from now, 6 months from now or a year from now.

Instead they should spend those resources on people that will actually contribute.

The best healthcare comes from self maitenance, if you need surgery for something that could have been prevented by eating better.. I have little sympathy.

You are a terrible person. If you are ever diagnosed with cancer I hope you are treated by people with more empathy than you display.

P.S. you are a serious dick and if I was a mod you would be banned for this post.

 

[RollWave]

Its because of the lawyers of America. When the risks are too great noone wants to ruin their stats AND increase their chance of being hit with a lawsuit. Waivers and anything else be damned it just isnt worth doing when the patient is going to die. Some life is better than cutting it completely short due to a risky procedure with low yield.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: RyanSengara
Because sometimes operating on someone just delays the inevitable, for example

An obese over-eating smoker needs triple bypass surgery but this person refuses to quit smoking, and doesn't change their eating habits.

They will die, if not 3 months from now, 6 months from now or a year from now.

Instead they should spend those resources on people that will actually contribute.

The best healthcare comes from self maitenance, if you need surgery for something that could have been prevented by eating better.. I have little sympathy.

You are a terrible person. If you are ever diagnosed with cancer I hope you are treated by people with more empathy than you display.

P.S. you are a serious dick and if I was a mod you would be banned for this post.

While the post might not have been made with the nicest of language, the point is nonetheless a valid one that doctors must consider. I'd imagine it comes up more often in organ transplantation scenarios, but if the surgery is risky, and the individual has already made it known that he/she will not make the lifestyle changes necessary to ensure proper healing and reduce further risk, not many doctors would want to attempt the procedure.

 

[RollWave]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: RyanSengara
Because sometimes operating on someone just delays the inevitable, for example

An obese over-eating smoker needs triple bypass surgery but this person refuses to quit smoking, and doesn't change their eating habits.

They will die, if not 3 months from now, 6 months from now or a year from now.

Instead they should spend those resources on people that will actually contribute.

The best healthcare comes from self maitenance, if you need surgery for something that could have been prevented by eating better.. I have little sympathy.

You are a terrible person. If you are ever diagnosed with cancer I hope you are treated by people with more empathy than you display.

P.S. you are a serious dick and if I was a mod you would be banned for this post.

Its too bad that the poster is correct in that if people just took care of themselves the American health system wouldnt be so taxed. In addition to the above cases, its ridiculous how many millions of dollars are essentially thrown away at doing procedures on patients that should just be in hospice care. You'd be surprised how much money is thrown away...

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: RyanSengara
Because sometimes operating on someone just delays the inevitable, for example

An obese over-eating smoker needs triple bypass surgery but this person refuses to quit smoking, and doesn't change their eating habits.

They will die, if not 3 months from now, 6 months from now or a year from now.

Instead they should spend those resources on people that will actually contribute.

The best healthcare comes from self maitenance, if you need surgery for something that could have been prevented by eating better.. I have little sympathy.

You are a terrible person. If you are ever diagnosed with cancer I hope you are treated by people with more empathy than you display.

P.S. you are a serious dick and if I was a mod you would be banned for this post.

While the post might not have been made with the nicest of language, the point is nonetheless a valid one that doctors must consider. I'd imagine it comes up more often in organ transplantation scenarios, but if the surgery is risky, and the individual has already made it known that he/she will not make the lifestyle changes necessary to ensure proper healing and reduce further risk, not many doctors would want to attempt the procedure.

Well, I hate to break it to you and everyone else but we are all gonna die.

The least we can do is treat dying people in a civil manner despite what you think might have brought them to their end because no one wants to die or have bad health. People should learn to be kinder towards unhealthy people. That's my 2 cents anyway.

 

[RollWave]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: RyanSengara
Because sometimes operating on someone just delays the inevitable, for example

An obese over-eating smoker needs triple bypass surgery but this person refuses to quit smoking, and doesn't change their eating habits.

They will die, if not 3 months from now, 6 months from now or a year from now.

Instead they should spend those resources on people that will actually contribute.

The best healthcare comes from self maitenance, if you need surgery for something that could have been prevented by eating better.. I have little sympathy.

You are a terrible person. If you are ever diagnosed with cancer I hope you are treated by people with more empathy than you display.

P.S. you are a serious dick and if I was a mod you would be banned for this post.

While the post might not have been made with the nicest of language, the point is nonetheless a valid one that doctors must consider. I'd imagine it comes up more often in organ transplantation scenarios, but if the surgery is risky, and the individual has already made it known that he/she will not make the lifestyle changes necessary to ensure proper healing and reduce further risk, not many doctors would want to attempt the procedure.

Well, I hate to break it to you and everyone else but we are all gonna die.

The least we can do is treat dying people in a civil manner despite what you think might have brought them to their end because no one wants to die or have bad health. People should learn to be kinder towards unhealthy people. That's my 2 cents anyway.

Kinder, yes. Should we spend money on lost causes (i'm talking about the OLD people who have knowingly abused their bodies)? I'm not so sure. At some point you have to accept that old age HAS to lead to death. Why spend millions for a couple weeks or months of living in a hospital when that money could be used to help younger patients with more to gain?

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: Conky
I don't know what that's about. A few months ago I watched my dad get cut open by highly skilled doctors to diagnose his ailment and yet they were able to do nothing for him after that. Probably the filthy insurance companies who would rather let people die than allow expensive operations.

They didn't want to try and fix his problem with surgery. I really wish they had. I miss my dad way more than I thought I would... he was the coolest.

I don't know stats for other diseases, but take lung cancer for example. Somewhere around 50% of those who qualify for surgery based on results from x-rays and other non-invasive tests are found to be inoperable once their chest has been cracked open. In these cases the cancer is just to widespread and deeply embedded to do anything. Its really unfortunate. (This is probably similar for many other types of cancers and even other diseases/conditions).

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: dawks

Originally posted by: Conky
I don't know what that's about. A few months ago I watched my dad get cut open by highly skilled doctors to diagnose his ailment and yet they were able to do nothing for him after that. Probably the filthy insurance companies who would rather let people die than allow expensive operations.

They didn't want to try and fix his problem with surgery. I really wish they had. I miss my dad way more than I thought I would... he was the coolest.

I don't know stats for other diseases, but take lung cancer for example. Somewhere around 50% of those who qualify for surgery based on results from x-rays and other non-invasive tests are found to be inoperable once their chest has been cracked open. In these cases the cancer is just to widespread and deeply embedded to do anything. Its really unfortunate. (This is probably similar for many other types of cancers and even other diseases/conditions).

My dad's cancer, and yes it was lung cancer, seemed to be operable to me. He was an exceptionally strong man which is why they opted for extremely strong chemotherapy. They never really gave it much of a shot surgically which I think would've given him another 10 years. Oh well, we all die in the end... it just sucks to see people die before their time because insurance companies put up all these hurdles to people who have what they thought was good insurance.

 

[Zugzwang152]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: dawks

Originally posted by: Conky
I don't know what that's about. A few months ago I watched my dad get cut open by highly skilled doctors to diagnose his ailment and yet they were able to do nothing for him after that. Probably the filthy insurance companies who would rather let people die than allow expensive operations.

They didn't want to try and fix his problem with surgery. I really wish they had. I miss my dad way more than I thought I would... he was the coolest.

I don't know stats for other diseases, but take lung cancer for example. Somewhere around 50% of those who qualify for surgery based on results from x-rays and other non-invasive tests are found to be inoperable once their chest has been cracked open. In these cases the cancer is just to widespread and deeply embedded to do anything. Its really unfortunate. (This is probably similar for many other types of cancers and even other diseases/conditions).

My dad's cancer, and yes it was lung cancer, seemed to be operable to me. He was an exceptionally strong man which is why they opted for extremely strong chemotherapy. They never really gave it much of a shot surgically which I think would've given him another 10 years. Oh well, we all die in the end... it just sucks to see people die before their time because insurance companies put up all these hurdles to people who have what they thought was good insurance.

Proof that they screwed you on purpose, or stop spreading FUD about health insurance companies.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Zugzwang152

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: dawks

Originally posted by: Conky
I don't know what that's about. A few months ago I watched my dad get cut open by highly skilled doctors to diagnose his ailment and yet they were able to do nothing for him after that. Probably the filthy insurance companies who would rather let people die than allow expensive operations.

They didn't want to try and fix his problem with surgery. I really wish they had. I miss my dad way more than I thought I would... he was the coolest.

I don't know stats for other diseases, but take lung cancer for example. Somewhere around 50% of those who qualify for surgery based on results from x-rays and other non-invasive tests are found to be inoperable once their chest has been cracked open. In these cases the cancer is just to widespread and deeply embedded to do anything. Its really unfortunate. (This is probably similar for many other types of cancers and even other diseases/conditions).

My dad's cancer, and yes it was lung cancer, seemed to be operable to me. He was an exceptionally strong man which is why they opted for extremely strong chemotherapy. They never really gave it much of a shot surgically which I think would've given him another 10 years. Oh well, we all die in the end... it just sucks to see people die before their time because insurance companies put up all these hurdles to people who have what they thought was good insurance.

Proof that they screwed you on purpose, or stop spreading FUD about health insurance companies.

Insurance companies are of all kinds of evil.

The only thing most insurance companies want to do is collect premiums while avoiding paying out any money. It's no damn wonder they own like 50% of all assets in the USA.

Research that claim for me... I know it's more than 50% but don't have the time to confirm it.

 

[preCRT]

Originally posted by: Conky

Originally posted by: dawks

Originally posted by: Conky
I don't know what that's about. A few months ago I watched my dad get cut open by highly skilled doctors to diagnose his ailment and yet they were able to do nothing for him after that. Probably the filthy insurance companies who would rather let people die than allow expensive operations.

They didn't want to try and fix his problem with surgery. I really wish they had. I miss my dad way more than I thought I would... he was the coolest.

I don't know stats for other diseases, but take lung cancer for example. Somewhere around 50% of those who qualify for surgery based on results from x-rays and other non-invasive tests are found to be inoperable once their chest has been cracked open. In these cases the cancer is just to widespread and deeply embedded to do anything. Its really unfortunate. (This is probably similar for many other types of cancers and even other diseases/conditions).

My dad's cancer, and yes it was lung cancer, seemed to be operable to me. He was an exceptionally strong man which is why they opted for extremely strong chemotherapy. They never really gave it much of a shot surgically which I think would've given him another 10 years. Oh well, we all die in the end... it just sucks to see people die before their time because insurance companies put up all these hurdles to people who have what they thought was good insurance.

I'm sorry for your loss.





Did your dad get a second or third opinion? Did any doc recommend surgery? How do you know that it was operable?