Abstract
From a historical perspective, one of the fundamental tenets of medicine is the need to “First do no harm” and this is central to the surgical ethos of protecting patients when they are at their most vulnerable as they are when they submit themselves to a general anaesthetic and the skills and judgement of a surgeon. In these circumstances, patients have every right to expect that the surgeon into whom they have placed their trust is not only competent to perform the procedure but also to manage unexpected complications as and when they occur.
However, adopting this position fails to recognise the practicality of surgical practice because all surgeons must make the transition from complete novice, through intermediate competency and eventually to expert independent performer.
The question arises as to how these difficult practical and ethical issues should be addressed in an objective manner that is fair not only to the patient and society, but also to the surgical community who are tasked with providing the next generation of surgical experts.
This chapter will outline the ethical issues that need to be considered and also provide a practical framework which can be used to resolve some of the problems encountered.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Moore FD. Ethical problems special to surgery: surgical teaching, surgical innovation, and the surgeon in managed care. Arch Surg. 2000;135(1):14–6.
Newton MJ. Moral dilemmas in surgical training: intent and the case for ethical ambiguity. J Med Ethics. 1986;12(4):207–11.
Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The Belmont Report. 1979. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1979.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
Ammar A. Values-based medicine (VsBM) and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Open access. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88393.
Imperfect by design: the problematic ethics of surgical training. J Med Ethics. 2019. https://jme-bmj-com.qelibresources.health.wa.gov.au/content/early/2019/12/13/medethics-2019-105837.
Garbutt G, Davies P. Should the practice of medicine be a deontological or utilitarian enterprise? J Med Ethics. 2011;37(5):267–70.
Downie RS. Dilemmas, ethics and intent—a commentary. J Med Ethics. 1986;12(4):210–1.
Mandal J, Ponnambath DK, Parija SC. Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Trop Parasitol. 2016;6(1):5–7.
Financial Support
No financial support has been required for this research.
Conflict of Interest
None declared.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Honeybul, S., Ammar, A. (2022). The Ethics of Neurosurgical Training. In: Ammar, A. (eds) Learning and Career Development in Neurosurgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02078-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02078-0_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-02077-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-02078-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)