The Ethics Of Oophorectomy

First, it seems important to recognize the value in the visiting physician’s perspective. He probably wants to do what is best for the patient. However, his perspective appears limited to specific medical issue of reducing cancer risk. If that was all that mattered, then it makes more sense for the physician to take control and proceed with the removal of the patient’s ovaries in addition to preventive mastectomy.
However, this perspective misses two important things. One is that the patient has cares beyond her medical health, such as the ability to have a family with her husband. Second is the value of a reduction of 85% in ovarian cancer risk is subjective and depends on the patient’s particular circumstances. I may have greater expertise in medicine, but Mrs. Fielding has greater expertise in Mrs. Fielding. I do not know how she values the direct costs and direct benefits of the oophorectomy, as well as she does. I am also in a worse position to assess the opportunity cost, she uniquely faces. For example, I have less of an understanding of the damage not being able to have kids could to do her; I have an inferior understanding of the strain not having
It is certainly not something I own, nor should it be considered public property. Therefore, without informed consent, giving Mrs. Fielding an oophorectomy is a violation of her property rights. I wish to respect patient autonomy as decisions are being made about their property, even if the patient’s management of her property is possibly unideal. Essentially, the physician should help the patient make the best decision for the patient, which is more in line with the information model of the patient-physician relationship. Withholding information from a patient, particularly in an attempt to coerce or deceive the patient into your desired plan of action, shows a lack of respect for the patient’s property rights and their