Should a surgeon be allowed to "tattoo" his patients?

[softlips]

Simple question,does a surgeon's experise allow him such freedom over his patients without their consent?

No. And I don't know a single doctor who would disagree.

[Stevek76]

Some explanation from the BBC:

Liver surgeons use an argon beam to stop livers bleeding, but can also use it to burn the surface of the liver to sketch out the area of an operation.

It is not believed to have been harmful to the liver and the marks normally disappear.

In one case it appears the organ was already damaged and as a result did not heal itself in the normal manner, allowing the marks to be seen.

- If it took any time at all, and reports said it would have taken some time, then you were anesthetised for longer than you should have been, increasing any risks associated with that, which is dangerous and irresponsible

-what the heck were other people present doing who saw it not to have reported it? They should be in the dock with him. It raises the possibility that they were too intimidated to report it, which doesn't look good in other ways- what else may they have been covering up? Might they also have been covering up errors or other bad behaviours by him and/or others?

I doubt it would have taken more than a second or two given the method. If the laser was so weak as to take significant time to burn the tissue it would be useless for the purposes of cauterising. Such lasers see typically over focused so that they are only effective over a tiny range hence can safely be used for these sketchings.

Given all that it's far from unfeasible that any other staff simply didn't notice him at it. Hopefully this isn't a common practice and there aren't liver transplant patients with all kinds of possibly faded doodles inside them.

[softlips]

Some explanation from the BBC:

Liver surgeons use an argon beam to stop livers bleeding, but can also use it to burn the surface of the liver to sketch out the area of an operation.

It is not believed to have been harmful to the liver and the marks normally disappear.

In one case it appears the organ was already damaged and as a result did not heal itself in the normal manner, allowing the marks to be seen.

- If it took any time at all, and reports said it would have taken some time, then you were anesthetised for longer than you should have been, increasing any risks associated with that, which is dangerous and irresponsible

-what the heck were other people present doing who saw it not to have reported it? They should be in the dock with him. It raises the possibility that they were too intimidated to report it, which doesn't look good in other ways- what else may they have been covering up? Might they also have been covering up errors or other bad behaviours by him and/or others?

I doubt it would have taken more than a second or two given the method. If the laser was so weak as to take significant time to burn the tissue it would be useless for the purposes of cauterising. Such lasers see typically over focused so that they are only effective over a tiny range hence can safely be used for these sketchings.

Given all that it's far from unfeasible that any other staff simply didn't notice him at it. Hopefully this isn't a common practice and there aren't liver transplant patients with all kinds of possibly faded doodles inside them.

It would have taken seconds. I've never seen anything similar done.

[Jeckyll_n_Snyde]

Yes.

I'd be honoured for him/her to sign their handiwork. Considering they'd have just either saved/prolonged my life then it's the least thing i'd be worried about. Surgeons are one of those few groups of people at the top of my respect tree.

On the other end of the scale i wouldn't deem a politician worthy of signing my budgerigars litter sheet

[Bonefishblues]

Yes.

I'd be honoured for him/her to sign their handiwork. Considering they'd have just either saved/prolonged my life then it's the least thing i'd be worried about. Surgeons are one of those few groups of people at the top of my respect tree.

Which they have worked for centuries to achieve (it wasn't always thus AIUI). Incidents like this are fundamentally disrespectful and inevitably erode that.

[reohn2]

Yes.

I'd be honoured for him/her to sign their handiwork. Considering they'd have just either saved/prolonged my life then it's the least thing i'd be worried about.....

I'd prefer a say in the matter myself,it being my body 'n all

[Cyril Haearn]

Traditionally surgeons were called "Mr" not "Dr", why?

[Tangled Metal]

I suspect some would prefer God as the title but Mr would still differentiate from the mere doctor of which are more numerous.

It's all down to the current attitudes of society. We are increasingly in a society where respect does not mean you have to forgo your personal rights over deciding what happens to your body. Once doctors and surgeons had the decisions to make. Now the patient has gained control of the decisions over their body.

I fear some doctors and surgeons have not kept pace with society. This surgeon has fallen foul of this change. Once nobody would have cared, indeed it wouldn't have been found out. Now it's a different time. Any doctor or surgeon who cannot see that should reconsider their occupation or be forced to.

If police, politicians and secret policemen can't make decisions over your body and your rights then why a doctor / surgeon?

Except politicians can change laws to enable rights abuses to happen but it is unlikely under current systems that it would happen.

[Tangled Metal]

Was it 8 fooled terrorist plots recently reported? Potentially some of us could have been affected by them if they'd not stopped them. Does that mean they can tattoo you?

Not a good comparison but saving your life does not give your hero rights that others don't have. That applies to a paramedic saving your life, a secret policeman foiling a bomb or a surgeon doing their job.

I make car parts that might end up on your car. I would like to put my initials into your car's paintwork. Please can you pm me with the location of your car so I can apply my self aggrandizing vandalism to your car. You can always respray it later so it's not permanent but it makes me feel good. I do make very good car parts at world class production quality rates so I'm good at my job too.

[AlaninWales]

Simple answer- no.
several point arise.

-If a doctor isn't allowed to tattoo his initials, or anything else of his choice, on your forehead whilst you are anesthetised, then the same applies to your insides.
- If it took any time at all, and reports said it would have taken some time, then you were anesthetised for longer than you should have been, increasing any risks associated with that, which is dangerous and irresponsible
-everything that is done/happens during surgery should be recorded. If this wasn't, then he and others should be disciplined for keeping false records
-If the patient was not informed of it immediately after the op, and I take it that they were not, that was morally wrong too (I think our records should be copied to us as a matter of course)
-if the patient did not give prior consent, then it is also a consent issue

+1 on all of the above

-what the heck were other people present doing who saw it not to have reported it? They should be in the dock with him. It raises the possibility that they were too intimidated to report it, which doesn't look good in other ways- what else may they have been covering up? Might they also have been covering up errors or other bad behaviours by him and/or others?

From the report I heard, he was using an instrument that he was expected to use, others in the vicinity would probably not have known he was doing so inappropriately.

.....and finally, is someone who is so arrogant they can't see all the above a fit person to be doing that job? What other implications does that attitude have, especially the aspects of it that suggest contempt for patients and the rules that protect patients, and that colleagues didn't feel able to report what he is doing?

One doctor had the moral courage to report him when they found out about it, that at least is encouraging.

Indeed, and when his inappropriate use of the laser was reported, he was suspended and punished. The question is (IMO) whether all the valuable training he has should now be wasted (or allowed to earn him good money elsewhere), or whether he should be employed as a surgeon here under close supervision. Such supervision would likely cost though. He is (IMO) unfit to work unsupervised.

Traditionally surgeons were called "Mr" not "Dr", why?

Because they are in fact glorified hair dressers?

[ambodach]

A colleague of mine had get a follow up abdominal op. as the wound was was not healing properly. The surgeon was the daughter of our managing director and was well liked. She finished up by drawing a flower around his navel with a surgical pencil or some such implement. It took him a little while to discover why nurses were coming from other wards to inspect his wound and walking away laughing. He thought it was funny also and was not bothered. Higher management however were not amused and there was quite a furore about it apparently. This was at least 40 years ago and all interested parties are now dead I think so nobody is likely to complain about me retelling this.

[mercalia]

well could have been worse - he didnt tattoo -

SB woz here



what worries me more is what they do to you in an autopsy - you may be dead but the indignity of it

[reohn2]

........what worries me more is what they do to you in an autopsy - you may be dead but the indignity of it

But there are very good reasons for carrying out an autopsy.

[Bonefishblues]

........what worries me more is what they do to you in an autopsy - you may be dead but the indignity of it

But there are very good reasons for carrying out an autopsy.

A diversion, if I may be permitted. Are the reasons for conducting them still as valid as when they began (which I assume was due to issues of public health and disease management?). Just musing, anyone have an informed view?

[softlips]

Traditionally surgeons were called "Mr" not "Dr", why?

Because originally surgeons were not doctors but were barbers. It's a UK thing, elsewhere they are doctors.