[kazinator]

Is that even legal? Can a bunch of people decide to go ahead with performing some procedure that has a 1/3 chance of killing the person, whose life is not in danger if it is not performed? If that person dies, that's seems like murder.

[pvaldes]

All that we know is that the doctor carefully guided the patient out of the intervention, flashing a value that nobody had introduced before in the conversation. Is unclear WHY without more information.

The fair possibility is that it would be not the best choice for the patient,

But other possibility could be a schedule problem with the doctor holidays for example.

Or that it would be too expensive for the hospital

Or that they didn't have the materials or the experience

To go forward with this operations the interests of the patient, the doctor and the hospital must match. Sometimes only two parts benefit from it.

[Danox]

Nonsense easy to say if you’re not in that position, there are many procedures that are done today that we take for granted, and almost every one of us if we live long enough, will face the doctor telling us that there is nothing to do, the only chance you have is a Hail Mary and even that will only prolong your life a short while but it won’t fix the problem.

Penicillin, antibiotics, and many vaccines have only come into general use within the last 80 years which is what one or two lifetimes. Many/every medical procedure starts somewhere everyone just hopes they don’t start with them.

[kazinator]

It seems clear from the grandparent comment that this was not a life-saving procedure. Operating on someone for a non-life-threatening reason where they have a 1 in 3 chance of dying according to a documented prior reaction to anaesthetic, is akin to attempted murder.

You might as well tie them to a post and shoot an apple off their head with a rifle from 50 yards.