Duodenal Switch: Bariatric Surgeons' Ethical and Legal Obligations

Hmm, the settlement of the law suit against Kaiser alone might set me up for retirement ...

 

I could probably hack out a paralegal certification in time to share in the profits.  There will be profit-sharing, right?

I'll need all the help I can get!

It would be interesting to see what profits there might be to share.  I suspect that a consent decree to be more open about ALL surgeries would be the primary result, plus legal fees.  I don't know if there would be punitive damages, although it would be interesting to leverage all the cases that Kaiser has LOST at the DMHC since 2004, in which they were TOLD that the DS was a proper option and that they had to pay for their patient to get it outside of Kaiser (they even have a contract with Rabkin for those cases in NorCal) and yet they still refuse to change their treatment options disclosures.

Diana,

Do you think that this could result in surgeons needing to present more outdated options like the VBG and BPD as well? Just curious.

I think the whole idea is intriguing. It certainly is outrageous that docs can get away with omitting such an important option.

I would think so long as the ASMBS still endorses it, yes.  But the surgeons could also provide additonal FACTUAL information about the results as well.

I was thinking along the same lines as you Jenna. By requiring disclosure of ALL that could be pretty inclusive. Would it cause more surgeons to require year long diets to cover their asses?

the possibilities are endless.

I'm all for full disclosure but there has to be some common sense involved as well

Is it the surgeons that require the diet period, or the insurance companies?  I think it is overwhelmingly the insurance companies.  Sure the surgeons make money off of it, if they have the system down, but I would view any surgeon that actually required it as a fatty-hater that doesn't know squat about the science of obesity and wouldn't let them operate on a hangnail.

I also think that you are always going to have some bias in that "full disclosure" during a discussion with a surgeon, but printed literature should be standardized and mandatory.

Judi, I guess the relative inconvenience of inclusiveness would also depend on how they are required present them. For instance, would it have to be in their seminars, or would literature be sufficient? I agree with Kimberley that there should be some sort of standard information, so that surgeons can't present the options in a way that is wildly inaccurate.

Given the proven failure of diets, I'd hope that those would not be extended under such a mandate.

Overall, I like the idea of this and would hope that a reasonable solution (with common sense) could be reached.

This is a bit of an aside, but I'd also like to see something targeting surgeons who advertise offering procedure which they do not perform. I think the patients of bait-and-don't-switch doctors have a real leg to stand on as well.

I think we see a new career for you, my dear!  It wouldn't suck.

Love it, Diana.  Thanks for posting.  When I had my DS the informed consent I signed included language saying that I had an understanding of all my options, including surgical and non surgical.  It listed all 4 major bariatric surgeries as options, and then I think some general language covering all others.

I remember when I read it wondering if the Lapband/RNY mill doctors used similar language in their informed consents, language that bulleted and specified the DS as an option.....or how many people bothered to fully read what they were signing.

Joanne