Medical norms and ethical principles: thoughts and dilemmas of an oncology surgeon

Gu Jin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002680

IF: 6.133

2023-01-01

Chinese Medical Journal

Abstract:As oncology surgeons, we always adhere to the norms of medicine and abide by the medical ethics and morals in our clinical practice. However, we often encounter professional dilemmas resulting in conflicts between surgical or clinical medicine principles and medical ethics in the practice of medicine, although such conflicts are not always equally divided along these lines. Herein, I present two such cases. Three years ago, I met a 32-year-old male patient.[1] After undergoing abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer, the patient's cancer recurred at the stoma site. The tumor was so large that no stoma protector could cover it at the stoma site. The large amount of feces, coupled with local tumor ulceration and infection, caused critical contamination at the patient's stoma site. Suffering greatly, the patient had an extremely poor quality of life. After completing various examinations, we could not exclude that the patient had microscopic metastases in the lungs. Cancer of the stoma is clinically exceedingly rare, with only sporadic cases reported.[2,3] In terms of general surgical principles, performing surgery in a case where a massive stoma tumor has distant metastases is considered pointless. However, this patient confided, "I have no dignity at all; I can not go out and my daughter refuses to let me hug her." He continued, "What is the point of living?" I have been practicing medicine for 40 years, but this was the first time I encountered a conflict between surgical norms and a patient's dignity. Hence, I operated on the patient in consideration of their circumstances, specifically their dignity and quality of life. The patient was overjoyed post-surgery and told me that he could once more hug his daughter; unfortunately, the patient died 6 months later due to tumor recurrence. The second case occurred just last week. A female patient with gastric cancer, also 33 years old, presented with bilateral huge ovarian metastases and massive ascites. The patient had severe abdominal distention and was unable to sit. The initial intention was to surgically remove her enlarged ovaries to relieve the clinical symptoms. However, intraoperative exploration revealed rice-like microscopic, disseminated foci throughout the peritoneum, multiple visible microscopic metastatic nodules in the greater omentum and peritoneum, with a large amount of ascites. Subsequently, after conferring with colleagues in the field, we agreed that surgery should not be performed and aborted the planned oophorectomy. I remember seeing the young patient curled up with great pain in her hospital bed. I felt guilty, because if I had performed the surgery on her, she would now be comfortably lying flat on her back. While the surgery would not have prolonged her life, it would have at least significantly improved her quality of life in her last moments. Nonetheless, at this point, she would continue to struggle in pain on her bed and wait for her life to end. This kind of predicament has been bothering me recently. As physicians, especially oncology surgeons, there are surgical interventions that significantly improve the quality of life of patients in advanced stages of cancer; however, these practices may sometimes conflict with medical norms. The patient with advanced stoma cancer had surgery that allowed them to spend their remaining 6 months with dignity, whereas this female patient of the same age was in severe pain, waiting to die. In the former case, my medical decisions might provoke doubts among professional peers and be deemed controversial, whereas in the latter case, I abided by the principles of medicine. Despite practicing medicine for 40 years, these two unique results made me feel uncertain and confused about my profession. Not all doctors would have made the same clinical decisions, and I do not proclaim that mine were necessarily correct. In thinking this matter through, I return to the same questions: What is the original intention of medicine? How can the conflict between the norms and ethics of medicine be resolved? At times, surgeons are confronted with many choices that directly alter a patient's outcomes, even though some of these outcomes may only be short-lived. We can neither take the moral high ground by denigrating the clinical decisions made by surgeons based on clinical norms nor overly praise the "benefits." These decisions may lead to short-term positive results, which physicians offer to patients out of compassion and responsibility at considerable risk–this made me consider certain things. First, although surgeons abide by the principles of medical ethics, the benefit to the patient is often difficult to define and the surgeon's subjective judgment might be considered rational. In many cases, this judgment of patient benefit varies between individuals, with the decision maker often being the most senior physician involved at the operating table. Second, we must consider whether the surgeon's decisions are consistent with the patient's subjective wishes. Sometimes the decisions made by physicians according to the wishes of the patient and their family are at odds with the objective outcomes of such decisions, at times contradicting them, which could affect the physician–patient relationship and lead to legal disputes. Third, the mutual trust between physicians and patients is a basic and essential requirement of the practice of medicine. In its absence, the unpredictable and sometimes adverse results produced by physicians' best efforts could have a significantly adverse impact on the relationship between physicians and patients. Rationality, compassion, a professional attitude, and upholding professional standards are attributes expected from the surgical profession. Concomitantly, we must ask how surgeons, especially young physicians, can adhere to the principles of medical ethics and maintain their original aspirations in medicine. This question must be answered to ensure that every patient can receive the appropriate treatment made available through medical technology in this information age and, further, allow them to spend their remaining time in dignity and peace, enjoying the best possible quality of life through the professionalism of surgeons. These remain pivotal topics in the continuous medical education of surgeons.