A mirror should definitely on your next Christmas wish list.

I would cast the more important argument as beneficence (i.e. doing the right thing for the patient), rather than patient autonomy. I think we are all speculating about consent… i doubt that the patient was taken to the OR without informed consent… but even if a testicular biosy was not offered as an alternative, it doesn’t sound like that option even falls into the standard of care anyway. When did our collective sympathy for balls begin to outweigh standard medical consensus?

Anyway, there is much to bicker about, and the loss of a testicle is just the kind of sensationalism that attracts trial lawyers.

Yet, he too has not furnished a standard for the patient’s best interests that is NOT equivalent to “what the patient wants.” I’ll give you the odd cases of people who want their healthy arms amputated or drug addicts–but beyond that, I’m not sure one exists. In our society, adults chose what’s best for them. I call it freedom. Must be “dim.”

Remember what this discussion is about: whether doctors should advise patients about a risky surgery that poses the possibility of spreading cancer, but could save a testicle (in rare cases). And, I repeat till I’m blue in the face, whether such a test makes sense depends on how the patient values life with one testicle vs. the risk of death or spreading cancer.

BTW, apparently, biopsies are routinely performed one men who only have 1 testicle & tragically have masses on them. The cost-benefit calculus is different in such a case, but the person in charge of such a calculus MUST be the patient.

As for the college student who looks down his nose at google–well, for what it’s worth, in my experience there are very few experts. We should be grateful to tools that allow us to do some checking ourselves.

Yet, he too has not furnished a standard for the patient’s best interests that is NOT equivalent to “what the patient wants.” I’ll give you the odd cases of people who want their healthy arms amputated or drug addicts–but beyond that, I’m not sure one exists. In our society, adults chose what’s best for them. I call it freedom. Must be “dim.”

Remember what this discussion is about: whether doctors should advise patients about a risky surgery that poses the possibility of spreading cancer, but could save a testicle (in rare cases). And, I repeat till I’m blue in the face, whether such a test makes sense depends on how the patient values life with one testicle vs. the risk of death or spreading cancer.

BTW, apparently, biopsies are routinely performed one men who only have 1 testicle & tragically have masses on them. The cost-benefit calculus is different in such a case, but the person in charge of such a calculus MUST be the patient.

As for the college student who looks down his nose at google–well, for what it’s worth, in my experience there are very few experts. We should be grateful to tools that allow us to do some checking ourselves.

He sounds like a petulant child, and I would hope that the physician kindly taking his time to respond wouldn’t waste any more of his time. If this dolt REALLY can’t conceive of a standard for the patient’s best interests that is NOT equivalent to “what the patient wants at any time, regardless of medical necessity or efficacy”, then it’s clear that you’re dealing with a dim mind.

And no, anonymous, I’m not a physician (before you accuse me of “paternalism” lol)– I’m a lowly college student.

You, however, said that doctors follow “professional standards in a way that reflects the patient’s best interests.” Yet, you have failed to provide a standard for a patient’s best interest that could trump what he or she truly wants. Indeed, except issues involving akrasia (drug addiction, etc.), I think there is no other standard.

Your comments indicate that such a standard is what YOU want–i.e., you think the guy who’d risk his life for his testicle is nuts. (so to speak)

It seems to me that if I’m paying you, you should do what I want.

(But then again I’m just an objectivist paranoid!) BTW, what does that make you– a Stalinist with delusions of grandeur?

Can’t say and wouldn’t want to.

” Do you practice that technique on patients who question your recommendations? “

Don’t need to. This is where suggesting a second opinion is helpful.

“You still haven’t told me, though, if people are so incapable of determining their own self-interest, why can you? In other words, if someone REALLY would want to risk his life for the chance of keeping a testicle, why is that against his interests–if that’s what he really wants?”

Really, that is the point of seeking any kind of professional advice, to define a problem, inquire about solutions, rule out bad ideas. Physicians don’t have a monopoly on this; certified engineers, architects, dentists and others work the same way.
The professional doesn’t have to go along with your bad idea just because that is what you want to do.

“Societies that believe people are motivated by higher ideals usually don’t end up too well–remember the Soviet Union?”

Spoken like a true Objectivist!

You still haven’t told me, though, if people are so incapable of determining their own self-interest, why can you? In other words, if someone REALLY would want to risk his life for the chance of keeping a testicle, why is that against his interests–if that’s what he really wants?

You say “professionalism and beneficience.” Sorry. The “reality” as you would say is that ALL people are wealth maximizers. Societies that believe people are motivated by higher ideals usually don’t end up too well–remember the Soviet Union?