How morally wrong is this? ("liver branding surgeon" )
[bbc.co.uk]
Apparently what he did was for all practical purposes physically harmless. The patients would presumably never have known about it if other medical staff hadn't drawn attention to it. And yet my gut instinct is to agree with the verdict and see it as a gross violation. What bothers me is that I find it difficult to rationalise why I feel it was so wrong. I think it's interesting because it's difficult to find any parallels that might help you to decide on the morality of it. It's generally quite difficult to assualt someone without it affecting them or them knowing about it.
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
7 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I saw an interview with one of his other patients, who forgives his behaviour, describing it in terms of an artist signing his work. She also spoke from her own perspective - that of a dying young woman, whose life was saved following a 16 hour procedure, one that would not have been impossible not that long ago. My own take is that it's one of those safe topics we can all moralise about because we don't have a stake in the game. There are sinister acts, carried out by others in our names, and with our money, every day that result in horrendous, trans-generational consequences for others. Just as with this surgeon, perhaps we generally don't consider them, or we choose not to consider them, because we don't have to.
Sawney_Mor
Level 4
Jan 13, 2018
1
A wife lives happily with her husband, but she does not know he cheats on her every now and then. Should she be as happy as she feels? If it would make her unhappy, should she be told of his behavior?
That is why I draw the line that no lie is ultimately right. Almost nobody would say "as long as everyone is glad, don't mention it".
hlfsousa
Level 6
Jan 13, 2018
0
I wouldn't want him as my surgeon, apparently he has really bad judgement.
HippieChick58
Level 9
Jan 12, 2018
0
I think it's more of an ethics issue than an actual legal one myself, although I'm not surprised this hasn't happened before. After all, if you get knee replacement or any artificial device, there has to be a serial number on it.
LucifersPen
Level 7
Jan 12, 2018
0
Assault in the eyes of the law, as I understand it as a past legal secretary, is touching someone without permission. Battery addresses the result of that assault. Besides, defacing someone's body organ, like graffiti and defacing property, doesn't have to destroy something. Merely bringing down it's value is enough. Personally, defacing an organ would be battery in my eyes. Bruises clear up. Broken bones mend. Branding never goes away. Perhaps the branding will cause problems further down the road.
EllenDale
Level 7
Jan 12, 2018
1
It seems that in this case there would have been effectively no negative consequences (certainly relative to the risk of the liver transplant in the first place). What if a builder put some graffiti inside a wall cavity while he was installing some insulation? It wouldn’t bring down the value of the property and you would never know. It might still be wrong, but it’s difficult to get very upset about it. To my mind there is something quite interesting about the wrongness here that relates to the integration.of our minds and bodies and the unconditional ownership we feel for our bodies.
@Odonata absolutely! I don't know what the legal definition is of "beating" in the UK is, but it is probably along the lines of battery. In one sense, battery means to beat, so they are probably close in meaning. Altering another's body, even if there is no sign of problem today, without someone's permission, is against the law. He got off easy, as you can tell by one of the victims.
When I was 27, I had an accident on my bike. I'd like to sound all big and bad, but it was my bicycle (chuckle quietly). Anyway, I landed on my face and knocked out one whole front tooth, chipped and loosened three others, broke my nose, and had road rash all over my left cheek from mouth to outer eye. As I was going to the dentist for replacement, I couldn't stop crying ( and this was 6 months later). The dentist asked why I was crying. I said because all the teeth I had had were mine and it upset me. He reassured me, in his dentist way, that the teeth would still be all mine. They just wouldn't be real. Which was my point exactly.
Like the person wrote about someone putting a tattoo on the back someone else's head. Doesnt hurt anything. Hair can be grown to cover it. Maybe the person had tattoos everywhere else covering the skin. The point is our body is OURS and to lose part of it, or to have it molested in some way, is very jarring, very invasive to some people.
uhm..... you're unconscious, a person in a position of trust does something to your body, you wake up totally unaware. I'd say that person is still in the wrong. A friend of mine had one to many at a party at a farm, passed out and woke up with a tattoo in pig ink on his arm he still has it to this day 45 years later. what if that tattoo had been done on the back of his head and he'd never known about it, would that be fine? I think not. persons who abuse others often start small and as they get away with things progress to worse crimes. I for one and disappointed he got away so lightly.
Dav87
Level 6
Jan 12, 2018
3
I agree. But perhaps the victims can sue for physical/psychological damage.
Although there was one of his patients who was interviewed and said that she didn't mind. She had had a liver transplant performed by him and (her views, not mine..) saw the branding as being similar to an artist signing his work. Apparently he was/is a very good surgeon and often worked long extra hours without overtime. Another complicating factor here is that I think the livers were all transplants - so to what extent were they a part of the body of the patient at the time they were being transplanted? It almost seems more of a violation of the generosity of the deceased donor than of the patient.
I wonder if the totality of the intentions and actions of someone should be seen as having any influence on how wrong some individual action is. Imagine that you lose your wallet, which contains all of your cards and £500 (or $500). Someone finds it and goes out of their way to track you down and return it to you anonymously, but they remove £25 for their trouble.. Strictly speaking this is theft, but is it really equally bad as just taking £25 from someone's wallet when they are not looking? Could this comparison be seen as similar to the one of the surgeon's actions and your example of somone who puts a tattoo on the back of your head at a party?
I can't help being curious.. 
what did the tattoo on your friend's arm say or picture?
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.