104 – Ethical Explanation to Count the Cost
A number of the folks on the “broken leg” discussion site had the same secondary surgery that I refused. And in quite a number of cases, the surgery didn’t go so well so well, resulting in further medical complications for them. (Heard a good one-liner the other day: “Ever wonder why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?)
I’ll start off with a posting that a knowledgeable person on the site contributed concerning this particular surgical procedure. I think this would be a helpful example of how an orthopedic surgeon should explain things to a patient who might be contemplating whether or not to go ahead with a given surgery.
In short, I think a doctor should feel a moral and ethical obligation to explain the options of a medical procedure something like this (and I quote):
“[This particular surgical procedure] could get you up and walking sooner --by a couple of weeks-- but it does take longer to heal, and there is a significantly greater likelihood of complications. Your choice depends on what your priorities are and how much you like to gamble.
“The main complications from surgery are reactions to anesthetic, infection, reaction to the hardware, increased likelihood of non union, and there's always human error (“Oops, wrong leg!”). Then there's the follow-up surgery for removal of the hardware, with additional opportunities for complications. And if you don't get the hardware removed, more problems are possible.”
This post ends with explaining, “The only downside to waiting and giving the leg time to heal” --which is the approach I took -- “[taking] a conservative approach, is that you might need surgery anyways.”
The point is: You also might not.
next chapter
I’ll start off with a posting that a knowledgeable person on the site contributed concerning this particular surgical procedure. I think this would be a helpful example of how an orthopedic surgeon should explain things to a patient who might be contemplating whether or not to go ahead with a given surgery.
In short, I think a doctor should feel a moral and ethical obligation to explain the options of a medical procedure something like this (and I quote):
“[This particular surgical procedure] could get you up and walking sooner --by a couple of weeks-- but it does take longer to heal, and there is a significantly greater likelihood of complications. Your choice depends on what your priorities are and how much you like to gamble.
“The main complications from surgery are reactions to anesthetic, infection, reaction to the hardware, increased likelihood of non union, and there's always human error (“Oops, wrong leg!”). Then there's the follow-up surgery for removal of the hardware, with additional opportunities for complications. And if you don't get the hardware removed, more problems are possible.”
This post ends with explaining, “The only downside to waiting and giving the leg time to heal” --which is the approach I took -- “[taking] a conservative approach, is that you might need surgery anyways.”
The point is: You also might not.
next chapter
<< Home