maimed, and miserable was not considered either before" or after the
operation. If the first operation was not enough and further changes
were necessary — in the doctor's opinion — then a second or a third
were often done.
In many cases there was still a problem, or other problems or
side effects, that had no answers. This was lamentable but
unavoidable. The surgeon had done his job and the patient must live
with it. Drugs and medication, frequently more and more potent
narcotics, were offered as relief.
xix
There is a medical "ethic" that justifies any wrongdoing in the
guise of promoting health. This protection is too often used as a
shield for the exposure of mistakes that can sometimes be most
devastating for a patient's entire life. The code protects one; the
supposed ends justify the means by which the irreparable damage
takes place.
In various ways the statement has often been made that even if
there is a simpler, easier, and less expensive way — even a less
destructive way — because the doctor is a surgeon, naturally he will
do it with surgery. After all, this is his special skill — he earns his
living by it!
In similar situations, where severe or near terminal situations
exist, even though simple natural corrections can be made very
quickly, only the accepted methods will be allowed. Why can't these
accepted methods be changed? What has to be done to make the
changes? Why are those who have the answers not even permitted to
demonstrate them? How reminiscent of Galileo in an earlier day
inviting the authorities to just look through his telescope and