Surgeon suspended over 'branding' his initials on a liver!!

reply to post by eletheia

What do you think the 'so called victim' would say if asked >>>

"Would you rather be dead, or alive with initials on the liver that saved your life??

.

I think that's a straw dog; unfitting question.

Of course, folks would be reasonable and right to choose life, regardless.

But that's NOT and honorable, healthy, life-giving choice for the medical profession to offer anyone.

Not only does it fail to RESPECT the sanctity of the individual(s) involved, it is CRASS AND ABUSIVE.

I can just see a line of advertisers lining up to be able to claim with photographic evidence that FAMOUS PERSON XYZ HAS "COCA COLA" BRANDED ON THEIR NEW LIVER, heart, lungs, knee replacement . . . etc.

And maybe every 100,000th transplant will be free if they consent to said advertisement branding.

It would STILL BE CRASS and demeaning of PERSONHOOD and the respectful sanctity of CREATED LIFE as the "apple of God's eye."

reply to post by BO XIAN


In regards to the OP

I still maintain to not make a knee jerk reaction at face value, unfounded slander towards a professional that has saved literally hundred or more lives in my opinion needs a bit more scrutiny of the situation. I am not to quick to pull the trigger and tend to want to give the doc the benefit of the doubt here all though I do understand there is much to this that is unknown. Merry Christmas BTW

I had to think about this. On one hand I am with schuyler, no harm no foul.

But on the other hand, this is a serious breach of ethics. I would not want the initials of a narcissist riding around in my body.

Think about what branding means:

To indicate ownership as in livestock.
To indicate in submissiveness or indicating masterly rights, or as a punishment, permanent body modification, etc.

It has been traditionally used on slaves.

It is not that the act is physically harmful, but it is emotionally harmful. I believe it is mostly illegal worldwide because of these indications.

Many people already feel violated by surgery, and sometimes require therapy, as someone had to open you up and stick their hands in you. This just makes the feeling that much worse.


So what is implies is extremely harmful. This "doctor" should have license revoked.

As for the lifesaving argument, would that give a doctor the right to sexually assault a woman during surgery if he is "saving her life?" No. This isn't quite a violation on that order but it is still a violation.

reply to post by BO XIAN



You answered that 'straw dog' unfitting question all by yourself >>> Quote >>>

"Of course folk would be reasonable and right to chose life regardless!??"


When push comes to shove ... what percentage of people would you say

would do the 'honourable' thing? When precious life is at stake they will take

whatever chance they can get .....(see your quote) above.


CRASS, ABUSIVE and without RESPECT is how very many (not all) treat their

own bodies, as in many instances that is how they get to be in the situation of

needing the expertise of the surgeon in the first place


The rest of your post is a conglomeration of way out fantasy of if's and but's

and maybe's ... However just to throw a thought into the pot ... I bet many,

many people would swap their 'integrity' for the chance of life over a death

sentence??

eletheia

webedoomed
reply to post by schuyler

 

I can kinda get what you're saying, but yes, branding would involve deforming tissues unnecessarily, which would be harming the liver, even if just a little bit.

I think it's less of the objective, and more about the ethics. You just can't allow something like this.

As I understand your post >>>>>

"It's more about the ethics" and "It can't be allowed"


Well my stance is that good surgeons perform miracles however they do it to achieve

the end result of prolonging and saving life!

yeah people like you are dangerous to liberty and human rights, i wonder how many suffered inhumanities in the past for the sake of saving lives because people like you excused it and accepted it as for the best.

but just so you know branding internal organs could very well cause an infection of the tissue and this "surgeon" unnecessarily endangered this person and exposed them to an increased risk beyond what just the surgery alone would cause.
he abused his position as a surgeon and showed that he can't be trusted with surgical tools.

and by the way: not all surgeons are good surgeons or "miracle workers" and in fact surgeons whether good or not so good are all practitioners of a discipline so such deviations should not be allowed.

reply to post by eletheia


I THINK you are still avoiding the crucial demeaning, dehumanizing aspect.

That issue is NOT fantasy.
It is reality. There are no if's, buts and maybes etc. involved, it is REAL . . . objectively, tyrannically, horrifically real in THIS case as well as any similar cases.

Glossing over that is not only unwise, it is borderline complicit with said dehumanizing meme's, values, practices.

No thanks.

It is NOT remotely a valid rationalization to note that patients disrespect their own bodies. They are not the ones responsible for the ETHICS in this case--the MD's are.

And if those in authority and key care giving positions cannot demonstrate faithful ethics, then we have already been shoved very far down the rabbit hole to hell.

Treating humans as objects to play with and abuse on a whim IS evil at the core.

Your failure to recognize that is frightful.

Logical questions therefrom are:

How were you abused at what early age in what fashion such that you so easily excuse abuse of others now?

What is your concept of what man is?

Is there any logical ultimate authority that you respect more than horse biscuits?

Is MIGHT = RIGHT in your view?

Is IF YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, GO FOR IT cool with you?

How would you feel about a young stud with a floosy in every neighborhood and town treating your favorite daughter with your values and logical behaviors therefrom?

.

reply to post by namehere



Yes I suppose you will be more aware of infections and the causes than any

Surgeon that has studied

# 4 years as undergrad

# 4 years medical school

# 4 years general medical intern

And this particular surgeon has operated at that hospital for 10 years. If his survival

record for patients was not good I doubt he would have been there 10 years ......


And this surgeon (in your words) unnecessarily endangered this patient.....Lol

THE PATIENT ISNT DEAD !!............

reply to post by BO XIAN


He just doesn't get it, and hides behind logical fallacies.

Might as well save your energies for someone who gets ethics.

reply to post by BO XIAN



My stance is laid out on page 4 in my reply to 'Argyll'


And I wonder how many of you on here with 'ethics' up to your armpits will uphold

those same 'ethics' when a child or loved one of yours needs 'life saving treatment

from someone like him??

I would like to think you would refuse it .... .

Depends on his motives I guess. If he did it to me in good humor, and it had no negative effect I'd probably get some weird enjoyment out of it. Branding would have defiantly caused more unnecessary recovery, but he did just save my ass cause he a bad muh#a.

He wasn't professional at all, but I never really cared for professionalism my self. I'll never be a doctor though.

Not a big deal to me, I'm not really all that outraged. He had a moment of arrogance. It is what it is.

whyamIhere

lacrimoniousfinale
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Innocent until proven guilty?

Who told on him?

Was it his kidney?

lol.

someone should have told on him or at least try to stop him.

it's not like he did it in private, right?

reply to post by webedoomed


Your assessment, sadly, appears to be quite accurate.

Though I wonder . . . how much is . . . cluelessness about foundational values . . . e.g.

WHAT does it mean to be HUMAN?

WHAT does it mean to support the sanctity of an individual's identity and person as inviolate?

WHAT does it mean to preserve the integrity of an individual's freedom of choice in terms of their body and person?

WHAT does it mean for the helping professions to put the patient first vs their own ego's?

I think the latter one is a screaming outrage in this case. It is narcissistic, arrogant, cheeky, rude, POSSESSIVE etc. to brand an organ in someone else's body. It is treating the OTHER person and their personal physical essence as A THING TO BE TOYED WITH AT WILL, ON A WHIM just because the perpetrator is in a position of power to do so.

Folks who want to live in a world ran by arrogant tyrants like that are terminally ignorant and devoid of perceptive thought beyond their noses, imho. AT least . . . in too many frightful key respects.

reply to post by eletheia


I'll check your post on p 4 out . . . but imho,

you still do NOT "get it."

If a favorite child of mine needed his help to live, I'd do my best to insist that he treat that child with utmost respect and no egotistical outrages.

In some contexts, circumstances, I could imagine refusing his treatment. If he wanted to sexually molest my child as part of his fee, no deal.

Branding is tantamount to a dog pissing to mark territory. In the medical context, it's an outrage.

reply to post by eletheia


I've read this post 3-4 times now and I don't have greater more clarity as to what your position, perspective really is.

You have had two tragic losses of children. You sound like you'd have been satan's gigolo to save their lives. Intense love of one's children can be enormously admirable.

However, when one compromises things that ought not to be compromised, one reduces one's self and the justification for one's compromise to absurdly negative and destructive limits. One becomes a mercenary abuser and abusee at some point.

Some things are worth dying for and some aren't.

reply to post by eletheia

"Would you rather be dead, or alive with initials on the liver that saved your life??

Why can't you be alive with the liver that saved your life.......minus the initials?

There was never a condition that to have a life saving liver transplant the patients had to accept that the surgeon was going to pointlessly brand his initials on the organ.....was there?

Well atleast it just his liver that he branded. and not his shaft! Then that might be a bigger problem. Or smaller depending on the shafts size.

abeverage
You have to know this probably wasn't the first time only The first time HE GOT CAUGHT...

Great point!
Looks like all his past patients are going to need to get some MRI done, to see if they have any markings on their organs.
Could MRI see organs with scar tissue that is made into initials?

This could lead to some really big law suits, and more trouble to this doctor.
You have to wonder, what was this guy thinking?
As an artist, I initial my artwork, I water mark my modeling pictures, I will leave a mark on many things I do in this world. But when it comes to my jobs, and work. Ive worked in the medical industry.

WE have PAPER WORK for all those matters. Anything done, we put that info down on many pieces of paper, and we sign them off. Who in their right mind in a job setting is going around marking our names on the objects or people we are working on!

This Doctor needs a mental evaluation and maybe spend a few days in the psychiatric ward.

its funny and creepy at the same time.

i wonder why the temptation though? what makes you think about doing that?

i was a mechanic for years and every time i had to mig weld something on the car i would mig my name onto the frame. probably 100 cars around my town with my name on them. i get a kick out of that thought. i know its not the same but still.

In between cooking turkey curry and turkey risotto I have found time to sit with a glass of decent ale I glance at a Uk 'paper, The Mail, and quote from today's article on this issue;

"Jayne Robbins of Patient Concern said:"this is a patient we are talking about, not an autograph book.""

That statement trumps all that has been writ before this and is brilliant in its simplicity.

Rationalise or not, there is nothing positive, moral or decent about what has been done. It is a disgrace to the profession and still beggars belief.

To those that disagree, your choice...

Mamatus
"Internal Investigation"........

lol You beat me to it!