Ghost Surgeries Must Be Eradicated

A medical institution possesses both public and private inter­ ests. However, recently, the public side of things has been em­ phasized because medical practice can involve invading the hu­ man body for treatment. As a result of this emphasis on public interests, medical law stipulates symbolic regulations on a hos­ pital's duty to prevent infections and the duty of medical per­ sonnel to provide the best medical service, plus regulations on specific duties [1]. Fundamentally, the principle of respect for autonomy is an ethical demand for respecting others' autonomy [2]. Arbitrary medical treatment means the absence of valid consent from a patient because the doctor failed to adequately explain the disease at hand or the method of the medical treat­ ment, or when a doctor carries out treatment even though the patient explicitly refused [3]. The Korean Assocication of Plastic Surgeons (KAPS) became aware of many illegal activities at G Plastic Surgical Clinic while investigating a case in which a high school student died of cere­ bral hypoxia during surgery induced by general anesthesia. KAPS found that a number of ghost surgeries had been performed at G Plastic Surgical Clinic for a long period of time, both system­ atically and recklessly (ghost surgeries involve one surgeon re­ placing another without the patient's consent) [4]. KAPS is ac­ tively researching U.S. legal precedents to push for judicial ac­ tion and fine the doctors for causing bodily injury. This is to prevent unfair harm to patients who have lost their autonomy and right of choice and also to restore the fundamental trust be­ tween doctors and patients that has broken down. In the past, there was no criminal penalty if a doctor substitut­ ed for another without the patient's consent. There is greater awareness of ghost surgery among legal circles today because of KAPS statements and debates on the subject after charges were filed with legal authorities. Because the purpose of medical prac­ tice is treatment, not injury, it does not meet the requirements of an assault causing bodily injury. Moreover, proving intention­ ality is difficult because the doctor must not only recognize the bodily injury inflicted on the patient, but also intend for the in­ jury to occur. To justify medical practice, the work itself must be justifiable. KAPS is thinking over whether arbitrary medical treatment could also be considered justifiable. Intentionality could be found in cases in which a different …