5 ms·

Honestly if he had asked for my consent, I might have thought about letting him brand my organ, it's not like anyone will see it or care. It might mean he takes

Honestly if he had asked for my consent, I might have thought about letting him brand my organ, it's not like anyone will see it or care. It might mean he takes more pride in his work and thus do a better job. I understand a professional wanting to "sign off" on their work; programmers, scientists, artists, engineers and so forth really like putting their name on things so why not doctors? If he were forthcoming maybe only 10% of patients might agree to it, but that should probably be enough to scratch some egotistic itch.

TrinTragula 9y ago
I cannot phantom a reason to put your health at a risk just to accomplish the ego of someone who should just do his work. I personally find it humilating. Care to explain better? Sometimes I'm really curious about how someone can have such a radically different view from me on such simple arguments, and I always love finding the reasoning behind that.
- dEnigma 9y ago
  Just for your information, and I'm not trying to be mean here: You probably meant "fathom", not "phantom".
  - TrinTragula 9y ago
    Thanks, english is not my first language, if that's an excuse. I try!
- Ultimatt 9y ago
  I can see this argument its not exactly burried. The article states there was no associated health risk. The more general point is a surgeon that openly requires signing your organ, is better than one less well trained surgeon in the world. From a utilitarian pov. Not everyone would necessarily care, like you do. Which is definitely true if you look at the range of responses on here. That this guy did it without consent is what's properly bad, tangibly more than the physical result of his breach of ethics.
  - benchaney 9y ago
    > The article states there was no associated health risk The article says the following > Bramhall's handiwork didn't appear to damage either liver These are not even close to the same thing.
confiscate 9y ago
You assume that signing means the doctor takes more pride in his work. That is just an assumption. You don't know for sure. It's possible he takes less pride too. For example, he might notice that out of 50 patients, only you consented to him signing on your organs for his ego. So it is possible that from his point of view, you don't care that much (compared to the other patients). So maybe try other things on your organs that he has been thinking about, maybe play around a little in other ways, test the boundaries a bit. Throw a few harmless things in there just for fun. Why not? You'd probably consent anyways. Why risk trying those things on other patients when he can try it on you, the person who consented?
confiscate 9y ago
An engineer signing on her work, is different from a doctor signing on a human organ. One is signing on a piece of object, and one is signing on a live human being. An object and a human being are hugely different things. That would be like saying, well I can write my name on my own piece of paper, why can't I tattoo my name on your back? No one can see it. Also, one is a "creation", and one is just "fixing". An engineer signing a circuit board that she created, is very different from a doctor signing on a person that she did not create.

TrinTragula 9y ago

I cannot phantom a reason to put your health at a risk just to accomplish the ego of someone who should just do his work. I personally find it humilating. Care to explain better? Sometimes I'm really curious about how someone can have such a radically different view from me on such simple arguments, and I always love finding the reasoning behind that.

dEnigma 9y ago
Just for your information, and I'm not trying to be mean here: You probably meant "fathom", not "phantom".
- TrinTragula 9y ago
  Thanks, english is not my first language, if that's an excuse. I try!
Ultimatt 9y ago
I can see this argument its not exactly burried. The article states there was no associated health risk. The more general point is a surgeon that openly requires signing your organ, is better than one less well trained surgeon in the world. From a utilitarian pov. Not everyone would necessarily care, like you do. Which is definitely true if you look at the range of responses on here. That this guy did it without consent is what's properly bad, tangibly more than the physical result of his breach of ethics.
- benchaney 9y ago
  > The article states there was no associated health risk The article says the following > Bramhall's handiwork didn't appear to damage either liver These are not even close to the same thing.

confiscate 9y ago

You assume that signing means the doctor takes more pride in his work. That is just an assumption. You don't know for sure. It's possible he takes less pride too. For example, he might notice that out of 50 patients, only you consented to him signing on your organs for his ego. So it is possible that from his point of view, you don't care that much (compared to the other patients). So maybe try other things on your organs that he has been thinking about, maybe play around a little in other ways, test the boundaries a bit. Throw a few harmless things in there just for fun. Why not? You'd probably consent anyways. Why risk trying those things on other patients when he can try it on you, the person who consented?

confiscate 9y ago

An engineer signing on her work, is different from a doctor signing on a human organ. One is signing on a piece of object, and one is signing on a live human being. An object and a human being are hugely different things. That would be like saying, well I can write my name on my own piece of paper, why can't I tattoo my name on your back? No one can see it. Also, one is a "creation", and one is just "fixing". An engineer signing a circuit board that she created, is very different from a doctor signing on a person that she did not create.