- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
An Austrian surgeon allegedly let his teenage daughter drill a hole in a patient’s skull.
Following a forestry accident in January, a 33-year-old man was flown by air ambulance to Graz University Hospital, Styria, southeastern Austria, with serious head injuries, according to Kronen Zeitung, an Austrian newspaper.
He needed emergency surgery, but the doctor allegedly let his 13-year-old daughter take part in operating on him.
The newspaper reported that she even drilled a hole in the patient’s skull.
While the operation was said to have gone off without issue, the patient is still unable to work and investigations by the Graz public prosecutor’s officer against the entire surgical team are continuing.
It wasn’t until April that an anonymous complaint was logged to the public prosecutor’s office about the allegations, the newspaper reported.
The alleged victim initially learned about the case in the media before later being told by authorities he was a witness in an investigation.
Allowing a literal child with 0 medical training/education to drill into/near a vital organ of someone experiencing an acute head injury while they are unconscious and without their consent? Naw, nothing wrong there at all.
Y’all just jealous she’s a brain surgeon with a 100% survival rate at 13.
Well, I’m not a brain surgeon. So, I don’t take myself as qualified to make that risk assessment. I agree that all you said up to ‘without consent’ is a very reasonable starting point to think about it, the answer to it should be made by whomever is qualified to answer it.
As for consent, no pacirnt gives direct consent to who’s in/helping the surgery besides the head surgeon. Why do you claim its need in this case?
There is a trauma surgeon in the article stating she shouldn’t have even been allowed in the room, let alone allowed to drill into a patient’s skull.
Is it less ethical or more ethical if the patient had given informed consent?
No patient gives consent to who is helping in the surgery because there is an implicit understanding that it will only be performed by qualified licensed personnel. There are multiple regulating bodies that prevent unqualified people from practicing in a professional setting. So, it is not unreasonable to make this assumption.
My argument is that it would be one thing if this was a simple superficial elective surgery where the patient consented to allowing the doctor’s unqualified child “to give it a go” popping a pimple or something. It is significantly worse because it was a life-threatening emergency procedure where the doctor elected to increase the likelihood of failure/harm/death while the patient was in a position where they couldn’t consent to the doctor taking that unnecessary risk.
Thanks for the thoughtful answer!