The Ethics of extra treatment












3















This is something that I have been considering for quite a while based on a fictional story I had read.



An unconscious individual must undergo emergency surgery in order to stabilise them and prevent the patent's death. This medical intervention is happening without the patent's explicit consent however since a reasonable person can be expected to consent to life saving surgery (absent a living will or some other indication) I don't think anyone would have any ethical concerns about it.



However while the surgery is occurring something that would not cause immediate harm but is highly likely to cause extreme disability in the long term is discovered (for example a tumour). Is it ethical to fix this newly discovered condition at the same time?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Q the Platypus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    3















    This is something that I have been considering for quite a while based on a fictional story I had read.



    An unconscious individual must undergo emergency surgery in order to stabilise them and prevent the patent's death. This medical intervention is happening without the patent's explicit consent however since a reasonable person can be expected to consent to life saving surgery (absent a living will or some other indication) I don't think anyone would have any ethical concerns about it.



    However while the surgery is occurring something that would not cause immediate harm but is highly likely to cause extreme disability in the long term is discovered (for example a tumour). Is it ethical to fix this newly discovered condition at the same time?










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    Q the Platypus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      3












      3








      3








      This is something that I have been considering for quite a while based on a fictional story I had read.



      An unconscious individual must undergo emergency surgery in order to stabilise them and prevent the patent's death. This medical intervention is happening without the patent's explicit consent however since a reasonable person can be expected to consent to life saving surgery (absent a living will or some other indication) I don't think anyone would have any ethical concerns about it.



      However while the surgery is occurring something that would not cause immediate harm but is highly likely to cause extreme disability in the long term is discovered (for example a tumour). Is it ethical to fix this newly discovered condition at the same time?










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Q the Platypus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      This is something that I have been considering for quite a while based on a fictional story I had read.



      An unconscious individual must undergo emergency surgery in order to stabilise them and prevent the patent's death. This medical intervention is happening without the patent's explicit consent however since a reasonable person can be expected to consent to life saving surgery (absent a living will or some other indication) I don't think anyone would have any ethical concerns about it.



      However while the surgery is occurring something that would not cause immediate harm but is highly likely to cause extreme disability in the long term is discovered (for example a tumour). Is it ethical to fix this newly discovered condition at the same time?







      cancer surgery medical-ethics






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Q the Platypus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Q the Platypus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 2 hours ago









      De Novo

      1,10315




      1,10315






      New contributor




      Q the Platypus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 3 hours ago









      Q the PlatypusQ the Platypus

      1184




      1184




      New contributor




      Q the Platypus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Q the Platypus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Q the Platypus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          You're describing an unexpected intra-operative finding. The possibility of unexpected findings (and their treatment) is usually discussed during the consent for the original procedure. Of course, in this situation, there was no initial discussion. The way this sort of issue is usually framed in medical ethics uses a framework of four principles (see Beauchamp and Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics): autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Here, beneficence (the best interest of the patient), outweighs autonomy (the right of the patient to make his or her own choice) for the life saving surgery, and the same would need to occur for addressing the unexpected finding. One would have to (intraoperatively) consider the risks and benefits of removing the tumor, as well as the risks of a second operation were the surgeon to defer. In, e.g., a laparotomy, a readily visualized tumor would almost certainly be removed and sent to pathology. Other cases (e.g., neurosurgery, with a tumor involving eloquent cortex), are more complicated. This sort of thing is less common now, given the likelihood of seeing any tumor that would be obvious during surgery ahead of time with high resolution cross sectional imaging, but it does happen.



          You can read a little about the decision making around unexpected intra-operative findings here, in the context of abdominal surgery.






          share|improve this answer
























          • Could you add some citations?

            – Carey Gregory
            53 mins ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "607"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          Q the Platypus is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmedicalsciences.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f18470%2fthe-ethics-of-extra-treatment%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3














          You're describing an unexpected intra-operative finding. The possibility of unexpected findings (and their treatment) is usually discussed during the consent for the original procedure. Of course, in this situation, there was no initial discussion. The way this sort of issue is usually framed in medical ethics uses a framework of four principles (see Beauchamp and Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics): autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Here, beneficence (the best interest of the patient), outweighs autonomy (the right of the patient to make his or her own choice) for the life saving surgery, and the same would need to occur for addressing the unexpected finding. One would have to (intraoperatively) consider the risks and benefits of removing the tumor, as well as the risks of a second operation were the surgeon to defer. In, e.g., a laparotomy, a readily visualized tumor would almost certainly be removed and sent to pathology. Other cases (e.g., neurosurgery, with a tumor involving eloquent cortex), are more complicated. This sort of thing is less common now, given the likelihood of seeing any tumor that would be obvious during surgery ahead of time with high resolution cross sectional imaging, but it does happen.



          You can read a little about the decision making around unexpected intra-operative findings here, in the context of abdominal surgery.






          share|improve this answer
























          • Could you add some citations?

            – Carey Gregory
            53 mins ago
















          3














          You're describing an unexpected intra-operative finding. The possibility of unexpected findings (and their treatment) is usually discussed during the consent for the original procedure. Of course, in this situation, there was no initial discussion. The way this sort of issue is usually framed in medical ethics uses a framework of four principles (see Beauchamp and Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics): autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Here, beneficence (the best interest of the patient), outweighs autonomy (the right of the patient to make his or her own choice) for the life saving surgery, and the same would need to occur for addressing the unexpected finding. One would have to (intraoperatively) consider the risks and benefits of removing the tumor, as well as the risks of a second operation were the surgeon to defer. In, e.g., a laparotomy, a readily visualized tumor would almost certainly be removed and sent to pathology. Other cases (e.g., neurosurgery, with a tumor involving eloquent cortex), are more complicated. This sort of thing is less common now, given the likelihood of seeing any tumor that would be obvious during surgery ahead of time with high resolution cross sectional imaging, but it does happen.



          You can read a little about the decision making around unexpected intra-operative findings here, in the context of abdominal surgery.






          share|improve this answer
























          • Could you add some citations?

            – Carey Gregory
            53 mins ago














          3












          3








          3







          You're describing an unexpected intra-operative finding. The possibility of unexpected findings (and their treatment) is usually discussed during the consent for the original procedure. Of course, in this situation, there was no initial discussion. The way this sort of issue is usually framed in medical ethics uses a framework of four principles (see Beauchamp and Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics): autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Here, beneficence (the best interest of the patient), outweighs autonomy (the right of the patient to make his or her own choice) for the life saving surgery, and the same would need to occur for addressing the unexpected finding. One would have to (intraoperatively) consider the risks and benefits of removing the tumor, as well as the risks of a second operation were the surgeon to defer. In, e.g., a laparotomy, a readily visualized tumor would almost certainly be removed and sent to pathology. Other cases (e.g., neurosurgery, with a tumor involving eloquent cortex), are more complicated. This sort of thing is less common now, given the likelihood of seeing any tumor that would be obvious during surgery ahead of time with high resolution cross sectional imaging, but it does happen.



          You can read a little about the decision making around unexpected intra-operative findings here, in the context of abdominal surgery.






          share|improve this answer













          You're describing an unexpected intra-operative finding. The possibility of unexpected findings (and their treatment) is usually discussed during the consent for the original procedure. Of course, in this situation, there was no initial discussion. The way this sort of issue is usually framed in medical ethics uses a framework of four principles (see Beauchamp and Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics): autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Here, beneficence (the best interest of the patient), outweighs autonomy (the right of the patient to make his or her own choice) for the life saving surgery, and the same would need to occur for addressing the unexpected finding. One would have to (intraoperatively) consider the risks and benefits of removing the tumor, as well as the risks of a second operation were the surgeon to defer. In, e.g., a laparotomy, a readily visualized tumor would almost certainly be removed and sent to pathology. Other cases (e.g., neurosurgery, with a tumor involving eloquent cortex), are more complicated. This sort of thing is less common now, given the likelihood of seeing any tumor that would be obvious during surgery ahead of time with high resolution cross sectional imaging, but it does happen.



          You can read a little about the decision making around unexpected intra-operative findings here, in the context of abdominal surgery.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 hours ago









          De NovoDe Novo

          1,10315




          1,10315













          • Could you add some citations?

            – Carey Gregory
            53 mins ago



















          • Could you add some citations?

            – Carey Gregory
            53 mins ago

















          Could you add some citations?

          – Carey Gregory
          53 mins ago





          Could you add some citations?

          – Carey Gregory
          53 mins ago










          Q the Platypus is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          Q the Platypus is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













          Q the Platypus is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          Q the Platypus is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















          Thanks for contributing an answer to Medical Sciences Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmedicalsciences.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f18470%2fthe-ethics-of-extra-treatment%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          SQL Server 17 - Attemping to backup to remote NAS but Access is denied

          Always On Availability groups resolving state after failover - Remote harden of transaction...

          Restoring from pg_dump with foreign key constraints