Oct 1, 2024
10:57:46pm
10:57:46pm
But how is the liability risk any different when the mole is NOT removed?
I would assume there is a REDUCTION in liability risk for the doctor if an apparently benign mole is removed, because removal always reduces the risk of cancer. Taking action to reduce the risk of cancer, even though removal was not indicated, seems like it should favor the doctor in any malpractice suit.
I could maybe accept that there is NO CHANGE in liability risk if an apparently benign mole is removed, but that would still be a head-scratcher to me.
What makes absolutely no sense is the suggestion that there is an INCREASE in liability risk if an apparently benign mole is removed. This is the only situation where I could understand the doctor being unwilling to remove the mole without performing a biopsy. But I am utterly failing to understand how this could possibly be the case.
I could maybe accept that there is NO CHANGE in liability risk if an apparently benign mole is removed, but that would still be a head-scratcher to me.
What makes absolutely no sense is the suggestion that there is an INCREASE in liability risk if an apparently benign mole is removed. This is the only situation where I could understand the doctor being unwilling to remove the mole without performing a biopsy. But I am utterly failing to understand how this could possibly be the case.
- Bio page
- Bobber
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Last login
- Oct 1, 2024
- Total posts
- 548 (21 FO)
Messages
Time
Oct 1, 1:49pm
Oct 1, 1:54pm
Oct 1, 2:07pm
Oct 1, 2:43pm
Oct 1, 1:57pm
Oct 1, 2:08pm
Oct 1, 1:57pm
Oct 1, 2:03pm
If that's the medical establishment's response to an obvious failure to provide patient-centered care
Oct 1, 2:14pm
Oct 1, 3:53pm
Oct 1, 2:10pm
Oct 1, 1:58pm
Oct 1, 2:03pm
Oct 1, 2:17pm
Oct 1, 2:24pm
Oct 1, 7:01pm
Oct 1, 7:11pm
So maybe what I should do is get a dermatologist to evaluate, but go to a cosmetic surgeon to remove?
Oct 1, 7:28pm
Oct 1, 8:19pm
Oct 1, 9:32pm
Oct 1, 2:32pm
Oct 1, 2:33pm