Medical ethics existed almost since the beginning of medicine it self. So did unscrupulous practice I believe! In the current world of consumerism, we often hear of negligence, apathy, litigation...
Many of these allegations are against doctors and hospitals. And why not if we can have a business prospect in trade that involves kidneys or a deal in sex determination,why shouldn't people treat doctors the way they are at times!
For a change, I tell you story of a patient who was not discriminated by doctors but who chose to put the treating doctor's (and staff's) lives in jeopardy.
He came to us and declared he was HIV positive and sought a surgical intervention for his cataract. Fair enough! Those were early days of AIDS in India: The first case was reported in 1986, this chap was seen by us in 1995.
We were not very keen to know how he got this status or what was the probable source of his infection. Nevertheless, he attributed it to his deceased wife (no longer there to support or refute this claim) who received "blood transfusion" just a couple of weeks ago when she underwent a hysterectomy surgery for a malignant tumour. We just did not understand if a lady died during her treatment only weeks ago, when did she have an opportunity to infect this 76 year old through "unprotected sex"!
The hospital I worked in had a special meeting involving senior consultants and a surgery was planned albeit at a higher cost considering the extra arrangements that were deemed necessary in terms of extra consumables and extra risk and thereby extra precautions involved. The difference in the cost was meagre and justifiable.
The chap did not turn up for his surgery on the Dee day.
Everyone else forgot about him.
Few months later he was seen in the Uveitis clinic with CMV retinitis - an infection seen in terminally ill AIDS patients. I realized that the smart chap had undergone a cataract surgery elsewhere.
In India such things happen! Patients don't turn up. They shop around and then decide where to go for their surgery. Nothing unusual?
I doubt.
The unusual aspect of the story was this man who had in no way been discriminated by thee hospital staff, went some where else not because a better care was provided, but in order to cut the cost involved.
I doubt if the guy revealed his HIV status to the doctor who operate upon him: remember in 1995 most eye hospitals did not screen their patients for HIV. Furthermore, even now without a person's consent you can not legally arrange to have HIV status tested in India.
HIV being a rather delicate virus may not have been transmitted to the doctor as the chances of an injury or a prick to the doctor or staff are remote.
What if that actually happened to this doctor who operated upon the smart guy?
Now I tell you about a doctor who inserted an advisory in an American Journal revealing that he had recently acquired HIV infection and advised all his operated patients in a specified period to have their HIV test done.
A great contrasts in the mindset of two individuals! Isn't it?
Think over what would you do if you were either a patient of this kind or the doctor in the illustration.
Bye,
Will be back shortly.
Posts
