The ethical dilemmas of aesthetic medicine: What every provider should consider

Department of Plastic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Plastic surgical nursing: official journal of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgical Nurses 07/2010; 30(3):152-5; quiz 156. DOI: 10.1097/PSN.0b013e3181ee1789
Source: PubMed


The purpose of aesthetic medicine is embellishment and enhancement. As these procedures are elective in nature, media messages and misleading advertisements do influence those consumers seeking to improve or enhance their appearance. The role of provider demands that prudent guide these treatment options and not only succumb to patient demands. This article discusses the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice, and presents a framework to guide practice to enhance resolution of ethical dilemmas confronting the provider of aesthetic medicine.

12 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There has been a move in medicine towards patient-centred care, leading to more demands from patients for particular therapies and treatments, and for wish-fulfilling medicine: the use of medical services according to the patient's wishes to enhance their subjective functioning, appearance or health. In contrast to conventional medicine, this use of medical services is not needed from a medical point of view. Boundaries in wish-fulfilling medicine are partly set by a physician's decision to fulfil or decline a patient's wish in practice. In order to develop a better understanding of how wish-fulfilling medicine occurs in practice in The Netherlands, a qualitative study (15 semistructured interviews and 1 focus group) was undertaken. The aim was to investigate the range and kind of arguments used by general practitioners and plastic surgeons in wish-fulfilling medicine. These groups represent the public funded realm of medicine as well as privately paid for services. Moreover, GPs and plastic surgeons can both be approached directly by patients in The Netherlands. The physicians studied raised many arguments that were expected: they used patient autonomy, risks and benefits, normality and justice to limit wish-fulfilling medicine. In addition, arguments new to this debate were uncovered, which were frequently used to justify compliance with a patient's request. Such arguments seem familiar from conventional medicine, including empathy, the patient-doctor relationship and reassurance. Moreover, certain arguments that play a significant role in the literature on wish-fulfilling medicine and enhancement were not mentioned, such as concepts of disease and the enhancement-treatment dichotomy and 'suspect norms'.
    Journal of medical ethics 02/2012; 38(6):327-31. DOI:10.1136/medethics-2011-100103 · 1.51 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Testa and colleagues argue that evaluation for suitability for living donor surgery is rooted in paternalism in contrast with the evaluation for most operative interventions, which is rooted in the autonomy of patients. We examine two key ethical concepts that Testa and colleagues use: paternalism and autonomy, and two related ethical concepts: moral agency and shared decision making. We show that by moving the conversation from paternalism, negative autonomy, and informed consent to moral agency, relational autonomy, and shared decision making, one better understands why the arguments given by Testa and colleagues fail. We argue (1) why the hurdles that one must overcome to become a living donor are appropriate; and (2) that the similarities between living donor transplant surgery and cosmetic plastic surgery that the authors describe are inaccurate. Finally, we consider the recommendation to treat plastic surgery patients and living donors more similarly. We argue that any change should not be in the direction of becoming less protective of living donors, but more protective of cosmetic plastic surgery candidates.
    The Journal of clinical ethics 06/2012; 23(2):118-28. · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Maintenance of the highest ethical and professional standards in plastic surgery is in the best interests of our profession and the public whom we serve. Both the American Board of Medical Specialties and the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education mandate training in ethics and professionalism for all residents. Presently there is no gold standard in ethics and professionalism education. A systematic review on teaching ethics and professionalism in plastic surgery was performed for all articles from inception to May 23, 2013 in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ERIC. References of relevant publications were searched for additional papers. Key journals were hand searched and relevant conference proceedings were also reviewed. Duplicate and non-English articles were excluded. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to find articles that described a curriculum in ethics and/or professionalism in plastic surgery. Two hundred twenty-seven relevant articles were identified. One hundred seventy-four did not meet inclusion criteria based on screening of the title, and 39 of those did not meet inclusion criteria based on screening of the abstract or introductory paragraph. Of the 14 identified for full text review, only 2 articles described a set curriculum in ethics and/or professionalism in plastic surgery training and reported outcomes. A paucity of data exists regarding the structure, content, or relevant measures that can be applied to assess outcomes of a curriculum to teach ethics and professionalism to plastic surgery trainees. Endeavors to teach ethics and professionalism to plastic surgery trainees must rigorously document the process and outcomes to facilitate the maintenance of our profession.
    Annals of plastic surgery 04/2014; 72(4):484-8. DOI:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000126 · 1.49 Impact Factor

Similar Publications