A doctor can be liable for malpractice if he or she failed to inform a patient about the recognized risks of treatment. There are times when a patient would have decided against the procedure, if they had only known about the potential dangers. Then if one of these dangers does materialize and the patient is harmed, this could be a case of medical malpractice. This might be categorized as a "failure to warn", as the doctor did not accurately portray the treatment to the patient. According to the Insurance Journal, robotic surgeries may be poorly "marketed" by doctors.
According to their report, a hospital in Colorado had endorsed the use of robotic procedures to take out a patient's gall bladder; they only needed to make an incision at the belly button. That was last year. Back in 2010, a surgeon at the same hospital used robotic equipment for a parathyroid surgery, and he praised its advantages. What neither party mentioned were the full risks of such procedures. In the span of 2008 and 2011, ten people were hurt in robotic surgical procedures performed by that surgeon. This is according to the Colorado Medical Board. Some patients had arteries that burst, and two people had items that were left inside them. Other patients suffered damaged nerves. One patient required CPR, and another patient died.
The Insurance Journal reports that robotic surgery has not undergone randomized trials, meaning that the claimed benefits of this surgery may have not been substantiated. According to some studies, robotic procedures are much more expensive too. All the same, the company Intuitive Surgical has heavily promoted its robotic equipment for use in hospitals.
Bloomberg News said that 70 patients had died in robotic surgery since 2009, according to FDA reports. The rate of these adverse events has increased in 2013. This July, the FDA sent a letter to Intuitive Surgical, citing their marketing methods as inaccurate, not properly warning patients about potential risks. A spokeswoman for Intuitive Surgical said, "Ultimately decisions about treatment must be made between the surgeon and the patient during the informed consent process."
Herein lies the possibility of medical malpractice—bad marketing by surgeons themselves. Take the example of a woman in California, who said the surgeon made a robotic hysterectomy appear like a superior option to a typical operation. The reality was that the woman ended up with a pierced bowel, which took nine days just to discern. She had to undergo nine more surgeries to treat this injury. For these operations and for months in the hospital, her insurance had to pay nearly $1 million. The woman claims that she had not been informed about less-invasive surgery options that did not include a robot.
A couple of years ago, doctors at John Hopkins School of Medicine examined 164 hospital websites that publicized robotic surgery. They found that the sites "overestimate benefits" and "largely ignore risks". On the other hand, researchers from Stanford University discovered that for complex prostate surgeries, robots were of benefit, that the procedure was safer and required a shorter recovery time.
It appears then that robotic surgery may be a controversial front in medicine. There are plenty of physicians who applaud these less-invasive operations. But do they always warn their patients sufficiently about the risks involved? In the case of the Colorado surgeon, that is yet to be determined, as his hearing with the medical board is slated for next year.
If you have questions about informed consent, or if you feel that you have suffered from a medical professional's negligence, please do not hesitate to contact a medical malpractice lawyer.