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

[reohn2]

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

[mercalia]

I read about that. guy was done for assault in the end. I think that a bit extreme. I wonder do artificial bits and pieces put inside people like pacemakers have trade marks on them? Maybe not a bad idea as then if the job turns out to be shoddy you know who to hold responsible? so I feel sorry for the surgeon all seems a bit harmless to me - like an artist signing his work?

[Flinders]

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
-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?

.....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.

[Flinders]

I read about that. guy was done for assault in the end. I think that a bit extreme. I wonder do artificial bits and pieces put inside people like pacemakers have trade marks on them? Maybe not a bad idea as then if the job turns out to be shoddy you know who to hold responsible? so I feel sorry for the surgeon all seems a bit harmless to me - like an artist signing his work?

I'm an artist. I sign my work. It is customary to do so, and within the rules. My clients can see it before they buy. If they didn't want me to sign a commissioned picture, I wouldn't do it. No harm can come to a customer if I do it.
Not even remotely the same.

What he did was arrogant, increased risks for patients by prolonging their operations, and showed contempt for them.

[reohn2]

I read about that. guy was done for assault in the end. I think that a bit extreme. I wonder do artificial bits and pieces put inside people like pacemakers have trade marks on them? Maybe not a bad idea as then if the job turns out to be shoddy you know who to hold responsible? so I feel sorry for the surgeon all seems a bit harmless to me - like an artist signing his work?

?

[Cyril Haearn]

Anyone here got tattoos, inside or out?

Not me, never!

[Bonefishblues]

I read about that. guy was done for assault in the end. I think that a bit extreme. I wonder do artificial bits and pieces put inside people like pacemakers have trade marks on them? Maybe not a bad idea as then if the job turns out to be shoddy you know who to hold responsible? so I feel sorry for the surgeon all seems a bit harmless to me - like an artist signing his work?

I'm an artist. I sign my work. It is customary to do so, and within the rules. My clients can see it before they buy. If they didn't want me to sign a commissioned picture, I wouldn't do it. No harm can come to a customer if I do it.
Not even remotely the same.

What he did was arrogant, increased risks for patients by prolonging their operations, and showed contempt for them.

Pretty much this. Bizzare in the extreme.

[661-Pete]

I guess not.

But there's nothing to stop a couple of microchip engineers 'tattooing' a message on a silicon chip. And, unlike with our maverick surgeon, no-one gets hurt in the process!

It's a real shame that (as my link indicates) that story - which went viral some years ago - has since been discredited. It would be a delight to think that it were true....

[Cyril Haearn]

Did the patients have to be opened up again to prove he had done it?

[old_windbag]

But there's nothing to stop a couple of microchip engineers

Similarly with software containing "Easter Eggs". They are well documented within major software but even some of our embedded customer code had hidden messages etc by key combinations( for example merry christmas from RTC info ).

[reohn2]

Did the patients have to be opened up again to prove he had done it?

Apparently the "tattoos" were foind when the patients were operated on for a second time by another surgeon.
They were the initials of the first surgeon,SB,who's quite an eminent surgeon in his field,an artist according to some who has the right to "sign" his work

[Cunobelin]

I read about that. guy was done for assault in the end. I think that a bit extreme. I wonder do artificial bits and pieces put inside people like pacemakers have trade marks on them? Maybe not a bad idea as then if the job turns out to be shoddy you know who to hold responsible? so I feel sorry for the surgeon all seems a bit harmless to me - like an artist signing his work?

?

Trade marks and serial numbers of pieces of equipment are a valid entity that serves a legal purpose when it comes to accountability and audit


It also enables recall if defective, or helps to identify defective batches

[reohn2]

I read about that. guy was done for assault in the end. I think that a bit extreme. I wonder do artificial bits and pieces put inside people like pacemakers have trade marks on them? Maybe not a bad idea as then if the job turns out to be shoddy you know who to hold responsible? so I feel sorry for the surgeon all seems a bit harmless to me - like an artist signing his work?

?

Trade marks and serial numbers of pieces of equipment are a valid entity that serves a legal purpose when it comes to accountability and audit


It also enables recall if defective, or helps to identify defective batches

I've no problems with engineered parts such as the artificial hip joint I have fitted being serial numbered for that purpose.
However branding people's liver with the surgeon's initials isn't,and checking who carried out such work would be in the patient's notes.

[Cyril Haearn]

Did the patients have to be opened up again to prove he had done it?

Apparently the "tattoos" were foind when the patients were operated on for a second time by another surgeon.
They were the initials of the first surgeon,SB,who's quite an eminent surgeon in his field,an artist according to some who has the right to "sign" his work

Artists and scientists are two quite different groups I think

[reohn2]

Did the patients have to be opened up again to prove he had done it?

Apparently the "tattoos" were foind when the patients were operated on for a second time by another surgeon.
They were the initials of the first surgeon,SB,who's quite an eminent surgeon in his field,an artist according to some who has the right to "sign" his work

Artists and scientists are two quite different groups I think

Quite!