Advertisement

The History of Surgical Ethics

  • Jukes P. NammEmail author
  • Cassandra C. Krause
Chapter

Abstract

The origin of surgical ethics has been ambiguous. Some claim it dates back to the ancient Greeks, but most believe it began at least in part with Gregory and Percival who are credited as the founders of modern medical ethics. Although medical and surgical ethics share common fundamental principles, surgical ethics evolved distinctly from medical ethics due to the unique nature of surgery and the surgeon-patient relationship. The history of surgery as a profession has revolved around ethical issues unique to surgery such as fee splitting, itinerant surgery, informed consent, solid organ transplantation, and surgical innovation. As the field of surgery continues to advance, society will rely on surgeons to guide the future of surgical ethics to ensure that trust is upheld and the focus remains on the patient.

Keywords

Surgical ethics Surgery Ethics Bioethics History 

Notes

Glossary

Nonmaleficence

A fundamental principle of bioethics meaning first do no harm. It is based from the writings of Hippocrates primum non nocere.

Fee splitting

The practice of splitting the price the patient paid for surgery. It incentivized both the referring physician and the surgeon. It was addressed when ACS was first established as an unethical practice.

Itinerant surgery

A common practice in the early twentieth century when a surgeon would come at the request of a primary care physician and perform a surgery without ever seeing the patient first. Postoperative care was also left in the hands of the primary care physician. It was addressed as unethical practice, and surgeons were barred entrance into ACS fellowship if they were known to do this practice.

Reasonable person standard

Referring to the disclosure that accompanies the informed consent discussion. The reasonable person is the accepted form of disclosure meaning that the information disclosed should be in line with a hypothetical reasonable person.

Justice

One of the fundamental principles of bioethics. It is based on the idea fairness and equal treatment for all involved parties.

References

  1. 1.
    Jonsen A. A short history of medical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mininberg D. In: Allen JP, editor. The legacy of ancient Egyptian medicine. The art of medicine in ancient Egypt. New York: Metropolitan Museum Press; 2005. p. 13–5.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Namm JP, Siegler M, Brander C, Kim TY, Lowe C, Angelos P. History and evolution of surgical ethics: John Gregory to the twenty-first century. World J Surg. 2014;38(7):1568–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCullough L. The nature and limits of the Physician’s professional responsibilities: surgical ethics, matters of conscience, and managed care. Medicine and Philosophy. 2004;29(1):3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones JW, MacCullough LB, Richman BW. The ethics of surgical practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beauchamp T, Faden RR. History of informed consent Reich WT encyclopedia of bioethics ed. New York, NY: Free Press; 1978. p. 1233.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCullough L. John Gregory and the invention of professional medical ethics and the profession of medicine. Dordrect: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bastron D, McCullough L. What goes around, comes around: John Gregory, MD, and the profession of medicine. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2007;20:18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Percival T. Medical ethics. New York, NY: Leslie B Adams; 1985.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thomas Percival (1740--1804). Codifier of Medical Ethics. JAMA. 1965;194(12):1319–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inglis-Arkell E. The legend of the surgery with the 300% mortality rate: Science Direct; 2015 [cited 2017]. Available from: https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-legend-of-the-surgery-with-the-300-mortality-rate-1684894531.
  12. 12.
    Imber G. Genius on the edge. New York, NY: Kaplan Publishing; 2011.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rise G. Modern surgery in hospitals: development of anesthesia and antisepsis. Mending bodies, saving souls a history of hospitals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1888. p. 339–98.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davis L. Fellowship of surgeons: a history of the American College of Surgeons. Chicago, Ill: American College of Surgeons; 1960.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosenberg C. The Care of Strangers: the Rise of America’s hospital system. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Risse G. Mending Bodies, Saving souls: a history of hospitals. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Angelos P. The right choice? Surgical ethics and the history of surgery. [cited 2017 11/8]. Available from: http://www.mdedge.com/acssurgerynews/article/141648/practice-management/right-choice-surgical-ethics-and-history-surgery.
  18. 18.
    Jones J, McCullough L, Richman B. Informed consent: it’s not just signing a form. Thorac Surg Clin. 2005;15(4):451–60.. vCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McKneally M, Martin D. An entrustment model of consent for surgical treatment of life-threatening illness: perspective of patients requiring esophagectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;120(2):264–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Namm J, Siegler M, Angelos P. What is distinctive about surgical ethics. In: Ferreres A, Angelos P, Singer A, editors. Ethical issues in Surgical Care. Chicago: American College of Surgeons; 2017.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schloendorff V. Society of New York Hospital. 105 NE 92. New York; 1914.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brunicardi F, Anderson DK, Billiar TR, et al. Schwartz’s principles of surgery. 10th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education; 2015.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moore F, et al. Surgical ethics and the dying patient. Bull Am Coll Surg. 1975;60(6):12–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barclay WR. Guidelines for the Determination of Death. JAMA. 1981;246(19):2194.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keely G, Gorsuch AM, McCabe JM, et al. Uniform determination of death act. Chicago, IL: National Conference of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws; 1980.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Davis C, Delmonico F. Living-donor kidney transplantation: a review of the current practices for the live donor. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16(7):2098–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singer P, Sigler M, Whitington P. Ethics of liver transplantation with living donors. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:620–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim P, Testa G. Living donor liver transplantation in the USA. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2016;5(2):133–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nadalin S, Bockhorn M, Malago M, et al. Living donor liver transplantation. HPB (Oxford). 2006;8(1):10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Michael L. Evidence-based medicine, cost containment, care effectiveness: Is it a new trilogy aimed at transforming the surgical mystique or the reality of double standards? Acta Chir Belg. 2001;101:95–100.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reitsman A, Moreno JD. Ethical regulations for innovative surgery: the last frontier. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;194:792–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    AM R, MJ D. Ethical regulations for innovative surgery: the last frontier? J Am Coll Surg. 2002;194(6):792–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reynolds W. The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Profiles in Laparoscopy. 2001;5(1):89–94.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bernard H, Hartman TW. Complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg. 1993;165:533–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    The Southern Surgeons Club MM, Bennett C. The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg. 1992;170(1):55–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jones J, McCullough L, Richman B. The ethics of innovative surgical approaches for well-established procedures. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40(1):199–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    McKneally M, Daar A. Introducing new technologies: protecting subjects of surgical innovation and research. World J Surg. 2003;27(8):930–4.. discussion 4-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Biffl W, Spain D, Reitsma A, et al. Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: a position statement of the Society of University Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(6):1204–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Angelos P. Orlo Clark and the rise of surgical ethics. World J Surg. 2009;33(3):372–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Little M. The fivefold root of an ethics of surgery. Bioethics. 2002;16(3):183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Angelos P. Surgical ethics and the challenge of surgical innovation. Am J Surg. 2014;208(6):881–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bosk C. Forgive and remember. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suggested Literature

  1. Angelos P. Orlo Clark and the risk of surgical ethics. 2009; 50(3): 99–134.Google Scholar
  2. Litle M. The fivefold root of surgical ethics. 2002; 16(3): 183–201.Google Scholar
  3. Nahrwold DL, Kernahan PJ. A century of surgeons and surgery: the American College of Surgeons 1913–2012. Chicago: American College of Surgeons; 2012.Google Scholar
  4. Namm, et al. History and evolution of surgical ethics: from John Gregory to the 21st century. World J Surg. 2014;38(7):1568–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryCenter for Christian Bioethics, Loma Linda University HealthLoma LindaUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryLoma Linda University HealthLoma LindaUSA

Personalised recommendations