5 ms·

To me, a doctor drunk at work is far, far worse. I would much rather have a doctor initial my liver but still do a good job of fixing my problem, than have a dr

To me, a doctor drunk at work is far, far worse. I would much rather have a doctor initial my liver but still do a good job of fixing my problem, than have a drunk doctor operate on me (or treat me in any sense actually). I suspect a lot of the outrage is to do with the insult to human dignity that initialing someone's organs brings. But look at the outcomes.

Aeolun 9y ago
Yeah, if someone's initialing my liver, that's probably a good indication the operation went well :P
- DanBC 9y ago
  That's the defence he used. Something like "this is a work of art, and I'm proud of the skill and care I took"
jacquesm 9y ago
What if your liver developed a problem due to getting initialed? What if every doctor operating on you felt that carving their name in you was their right? How about the entire team? After all, the outcomes are what matters right... Really, this is improper, it's nothing to do with human dignity, it's got everything to do with trust and consent. And consent is - in case you didn't know it - a rather large plank in our doctor-patient relationships. Doctors are supposed to do what's necessary, frivolous actions are not supposed to be part of the package.
- chesimov 9y ago
  Yes, it is definitely improper to say the least. It also brings the profession into disrepute. I agree that it breaks trust as well as insulting dignity; and I should also clarify that my aim was not to defend the actions of the surgeon. I'm not a doctor but I don't find the complications argument convincing in this case though (unless it took a long time and resulted in prolonged anaesthesia; then I believe there are added risks). I still maintain that something like being drunk at work, especially as a doctor, is significantly more dangerous and reprehensible - lives are put at risk. By contrast, I think having initials on my liver, especially if I don't know about it, is less of a hardship.
  - chesimov 9y ago
    Edit: I haven't been able to clearly determine if the actual initial burning was harmful (in a significant way) or not.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      No, it wasn't. Surgeons have to mark livers to show areas they're going to work on. These are normally temporary markings and heal over time. When this surgeon made marks he also added his initials. He did this to one patient, and the marks did not heal, and another surgeon found the marks. I'm not trying to defend him, but it wasn't intended to be a permanent marking.
- DanBC 9y ago
  > What if your liver developed a problem due to getting initialed? He only initialed livers as part of a wider set of markings that surgeons normally make. If the initials are going to be a problem those other normal marks would also be a problem.
- corobo 9y ago
  > What if your liver developed a problem due to getting initialed? I mean.. at least you know who to sue.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    The Joe-job potential is limitless.

Aeolun 9y ago

Yeah, if someone's initialing my liver, that's probably a good indication the operation went well :P

DanBC 9y ago
That's the defence he used. Something like "this is a work of art, and I'm proud of the skill and care I took"

jacquesm 9y ago

What if your liver developed a problem due to getting initialed? What if every doctor operating on you felt that carving their name in you was their right? How about the entire team? After all, the outcomes are what matters right... Really, this is improper, it's nothing to do with human dignity, it's got everything to do with trust and consent. And consent is - in case you didn't know it - a rather large plank in our doctor-patient relationships. Doctors are supposed to do what's necessary, frivolous actions are not supposed to be part of the package.

chesimov 9y ago
Yes, it is definitely improper to say the least. It also brings the profession into disrepute. I agree that it breaks trust as well as insulting dignity; and I should also clarify that my aim was not to defend the actions of the surgeon. I'm not a doctor but I don't find the complications argument convincing in this case though (unless it took a long time and resulted in prolonged anaesthesia; then I believe there are added risks). I still maintain that something like being drunk at work, especially as a doctor, is significantly more dangerous and reprehensible - lives are put at risk. By contrast, I think having initials on my liver, especially if I don't know about it, is less of a hardship.
- chesimov 9y ago
  Edit: I haven't been able to clearly determine if the actual initial burning was harmful (in a significant way) or not.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    No, it wasn't. Surgeons have to mark livers to show areas they're going to work on. These are normally temporary markings and heal over time. When this surgeon made marks he also added his initials. He did this to one patient, and the marks did not heal, and another surgeon found the marks. I'm not trying to defend him, but it wasn't intended to be a permanent marking.
DanBC 9y ago
> What if your liver developed a problem due to getting initialed? He only initialed livers as part of a wider set of markings that surgeons normally make. If the initials are going to be a problem those other normal marks would also be a problem.
corobo 9y ago
> What if your liver developed a problem due to getting initialed? I mean.. at least you know who to sue.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  The Joe-job potential is limitless.