Live surgery like Virat Kohli batting and commentating simultaneously: SC plea demands strict monitoring, guidelines
New Delhi: A Delhi-based Ophthalmologist has moved the Supreme Court to highlight the legal and ethical issues posed by live surgery broadcast. The Apex Court bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra on Friday issued notices to the Central Government, the National Medical Commission, and others.
Challenging the live demonstration of medical surgeries to trainee doctors, professionals, and medical conferences, the plea filed by Dr. Rahil Chaudhary sought a direction to the NMC to appoint a committee to regularly monitor live surgery broadcasts and also framing of guidelines regarding this, adds PTI.
Seeking responses from the Centre and NMC, the Apex Court bench has posted the matter for further hearing after three weeks.
This comes after recently the All India Ophthalmological Society (AIOS) decided to lift the ban imposed on live surgeries back in the year 2016. AIOS had banned this practice after the news regarding the death of a patient, a poor labourer, during a live surgery workshop in August 2015 came to light, adds the Times of India.
However, this decision of AIOS was opposed by Dr. Rahil Chaudhary, a member of the society. He issued an urgent plea in this regard to the National Medical Commission (NMC) and highlighted various ethical and medical concerns surrounding live surgical broadcasts (LSBs), adds Express Healthcare.
As per the latest media report by Live Law, he also filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court bench and challenged the live demonstration of medical surgeries to trainee doctors, professionals, and medical conferences. In the plea, the doctor argued that Live Surgery Broadcasts (LSB), particularly by organizations like AIOS, pose significant challenges to the issue of informed consent.
The plea suggested that patients belonging to lower economic strata give permission for LBS as they are offered surgery waivers for live surgeries. However, this is done without realising that the surgeon's attention may be divided when they know they are being broadcasted live and it potentially puts patients at risk.
To argue the case, the plea cited a specific case dating back to 2015, where a live surgery broadcast conducted by a leading hospital in Delhi resulted in the death of a patient.
Apart from this, the petitioners claimed that advertising and sponsorship are the primary motivations behind such live procedures, which later get broadcasted at medical conferences. They argued that this compromises the purity of medical education and patient safety.
During the case proceedings, the counsel for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan raised several concerns regarding live surgery demonstrations, He also highlighted the fact that these surgeries get conducted with an audience of up to 800 individuals in medical conferences and this audience actively participates in the process by asking questions to the surgeon while the procedure is ongoing.
Responding to this, CJI Chandrachud made an interesting analogy and asked, "Like an IPL match?" Advocate Sankarnarayanan affirmed in response.
As per the latest media report by Bar and Bench, the petitioners' counsel drew a comparison between the practice of surgeons engaging in live discussions during surgeries and an unlikely scenario of a cricketer not only playing cricket but also providing live commentary.
"This is like Virat Kohli playing cricket and also giving live commentary. Many foreign countries have banned this. one person died on the table at AIIMS too. Some people agree as they are told foreign surgeon will operate but with live broadcast," submitted the counsel.
Advocate Sankaranarayanan highlighted the fact that many foreign countries have already banned this practice. At this outset, the petitioners' counsel also cited a case where a patient passed away on the operating table at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
He further contended that the LSBs raise ethical concerns regarding informed consent as the attention of the surgeon remains divided between the surgery and the individuals outside the operating theater.
Besides, the petitioners' counsel explained how patients from certain economically backward sections of the society were often told that a renowned 'foreign surgeon' would perform the surgery and they readily agreed.
He also pointed out that in some cases, the surgeon even commented on the medical equipment and techniques used during the surgery, creating potential distractions. Referring to this, he contended that this practice endangered the patients and raised serious ethical and legal questions.
Even though the CJI remarked that the live broadcasting was done for "educational purposes", after considering the arguments, he agreed to issue notice in the matter.
While at the outset, CJI DY Chandrachud did remark that the live broadcasting was done for "educational purposes", upon hearing the arguments, he agreed to issue notices in the matter.
