It's used in this paper as if it is standard terminology:



I'm not a dermatologist, or even a doctor, so my apologies if I'm not using the correct term. Whatever the correct term is for a mole that is "diagnosed as benign by clinical examination by a competent doctor", that's what I meant to say.

I'm not suggesting a doctor is expected to make a correct clinical diagnosis every time. Not sure where you got that. I'm just having trouble understanding how removing a mole clinically diagnosed as benign can possibly increase the doctor's liability compared to leaving it in place. Seems like a valid precautionary measure that should improve patient outcomes almost without exception. Sure, doing a biopsy of the removed mole could marginally improve outcomes even further, but it incurs additional cost, so the patient should be able to choose.

Are you saying that if a patient literally CANNOT pay for a biopsy, a doctor should refuse to remove the mole, even though the patient CAN pay for the removal and the procedure is likely improve the outcome for the patient?