Ethical Question with a Drunken Surgeon

[uclaussr]

---

Members do not see this ad.

the specific question was not about an appy...a c-section actually, shoott sounds like i blew it at my dream school 🙁

they said the surgery had to be done there and then...couldnt wait..

 

[cpants]

Why did you write appy then? Completely different scenario. Why does the patient need an urgent c-section? You DEFINITELY could not do a c-section after a few assists. If only the baby is at risk, best answer is probably to wait for the c-section until the surgeon sobers up. If both are at risk, probably best to have the drunk surgeon do his best.

I wouldn't sweat it too much. They usually design these questions to have no right answer. Just want to see how you handle pressure. Send your thank you note and hope for the best.

 

[IlDestriero]

Dude, you could not do an appy with or without verbal instruction as an MS3 after assisting a few times.

Have you seen an appendectomy? I could do one, and would after the apocalypse.😉
I would say let him do it and when he f's it all up, he can go back in the next day sober for the washout and revision. Hopefully he doesn't pass out into the field and cut the aorta. I'm guessing there's no vascular surgeon available on the island.
One good answer would have been to say you go and find the cardiac surgeon and tell him to get over himself and do the appendectomy. That would get you in!

 

[slatermd]

One good answer would have been to say you go and find the cardiac surgeon and tell him to get over himself and do the appendectomy. That would get you in!

👍

 

[IlDestriero]

A c/s changes everything. Easy answer. Mom can have another kid, he can operate when he sobers up. If the baby dies he dies. Operate drunk, or you trying, and you'll probably kill them both.
That's a classic Anesthesia oral board question. You're called to the floor for an emergent c/s for profound fetal distress. The normal answer is emergently to the OR and a general anesthetic. Prop, sux, tube, cut, deliver, 2 minutes, than damage control. However this patient reports a difficult intubation in the past and on brief exam has several features suggestive of a difficult intubation. Just to keep it interesting, she had the Denny's all can eat breakfast an hour ago. What are you going to do. Don't forget that the kids dying as you are thinking about your options.

 

[wolverinepwns]

if surgery is ANYTHING like beerpong then I think I will perform it better when i'm tipsy! haha

 

[uclaussr]

Unfortunately i have not studied for the anastethia boards to know this...wow, so how bad was my answer?

 

[cpants]

Have you seen an appendectomy? I could do one, and would after the apocalypse.😉
I would say let him do it and when he f's it all up, he can go back in the next day sober for the washout and revision. Hopefully he doesn't pass out into the field and cut the aorta. I'm guessing there's no vascular surgeon available on the island.
One good answer would have been to say you go and find the cardiac surgeon and tell him to get over himself and do the appendectomy. That would get you in!

Haha. I have seen a bunch. I have no doubt a drunk surgeon could do one. I have serious doubts a sober med student could do one.

 

[45408]

It's been evaluated by a few randomized trials as early as 1959. Hey it's not level one evidence, but in the scenario presented it is definitely the best option. This is probably the best one:
Hansson, J. (2009) Randomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as primary treatment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients. British Journal of Surgery 96(5)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bjs.6482/abstract

On a deserted island, I'd opt for IV antibiotics rather than surgery, but that study leaves a *little* to be desired.

A total of 369 eligible consecutive patients were included between May 2006 and September 2007: 202 patients in the study group (antibiotics) and 167 patients in the control group (appendicectomy) (Fig. 1). Some 106 (52·5 per cent) in the study group completed the intended antibiotic treatment, and 154 (92·2 per cent) in the control group had appendicectomy. Reasons for non-fulfilment of scheduled treatment included patient preference for the other treatment (33 patients; 30·3 per cent), the surgeon deciding that surgery was necessary based on clinical evaluation (19 patients; 17·4 per cent) and surgery being deemed necessary without any further specification (45 patients; 41·3 per cent) (Table 1). The study included 99·2 per cent of all patients appearing with assumed acute appendicitis at the three hospitals....but with any surgeon or patient being able to change the allocation based on medical judgement or personal preference. It may therefore be questionable whether the allocation procedure used in this study represented valid randomization.

 

[45408]

Prop, sux, tube, cut, deliver, 2 minutes, than damage control. However this patient reports a difficult intubation in the past and on brief exam has several features suggestive of a difficult intubation. Just to keep it interesting, she had the Denny's all can eat breakfast an hour ago. What are you going to do. Don't forget that the kids dying as you are thinking about your options.

This is the pre-allo forum, man. You might as well have posted it in Arabic.

دعم، sux، أنبوب، وقطع، وتقديم، 2 دقيقة، من السيطرة على الضرر. ولكن هذا المريض تقارير التنبيب الصعبة في الماضي وعلى امتحان موجز العديد من الميزات موحية من التنبيب الصعبة. وقالت انها لمجرد الاحتفاظ بها للاهتمام، وديني في جميع أن تأكل وجبة الإفطار قبل ساعة. ما أنت ذاهب الى القيام به. لا ننسى ان الاطفال يموتون كما كنت تفكر في الخيارات المتاحة أمامك.

 

[slatermd]

This is the pre-allo forum, man. You might as well have posted it in Arabic.

دعم، sux، أنبوب، وقطع، وتقديم، 2 دقيقة، من السيطرة على الضرر. ولكن هذا المريض تقارير التنبيب الصعبة في الماضي وعلى امتحان موجز العديد من الميزات موحية من التنبيب الصعبة. وقالت انها لمجرد الاحتفاظ بها للاهتمام، وديني في جميع أن تأكل وجبة الإفطار قبل ساعة. ما أنت ذاهب الى القيام به. لا ننسى ان الاطفال يموتون كما كنت تفكر في الخيارات المتاحة أمامك.

Ha. My answer was "go to Denny's after I fail my boards."

 

[sideways]

This is the pre-allo forum, man. You might as well have posted it in Arabic.

دعم، sux، أنبوب، وقطع، وتقديم، 2 دقيقة، من السيطرة على الضرر. ولكن هذا المريض تقارير التنبيب الصعبة في الماضي وعلى امتحان موجز العديد من الميزات موحية من التنبيب الصعبة. وقالت انها لمجرد الاحتفاظ بها للاهتمام، وديني في جميع أن تأكل وجبة الإفطار قبل ساعة. ما أنت ذاهب الى القيام به. لا ننسى ان الاطفال يموتون كما كنت تفكر في الخيارات المتاحة أمامك.

 

[Lokhtar]

The decision can be to delay surgery for 4 hours. This isn't an aortic dissection.

If the choice were between an incapacitated but otherwise qualified surgeon and an untrained, unlicensed M3, I think you would need to conclude that there is no one available to perform the surgery at this time and it is most unfortunate that the patient will die for lack of a provider.

I'm surprised by this answer.

Now if we were in the States, in a hospital, yea it's lawsuit-central if either one tries to operate. And they shouldn't.

But we're talking about a Tom Hanks in Castaway type situation here.

Someone either operates and he probably dies (depending on how drunk the surgeon is), or no one does and he certainly dies.

I don't see how you can say the latter is a more ethical option.


Put it another way, if you were the patient on the island, and you have the option of a drunk surgeon or certain death, which would you pick? Err, I'm removing the 3rd year from contention for obvious reasons.

 

[Bacchus]

Unfortunately i have not studied for the anastethia boards to know this...wow, so how bad was my answer?

Or anesthetic pharmacology. He's just giving you an example. No one expects you to know medicine as a pre-med.

 

[deleted74029]

Am I the only one who immediately thought of Jack Shephard?

 

[getdown]

Unfortunately i have not studied for the anastethia boards to know this...wow, so how bad was my answer?

Chill out man, why you so stressed out? You sound ridiculous worrying about something they know you have no clue about. If you knew the correct answer you wouldn't need to be interviewing, you'd be the one interviewing people.

 

[sideways]

Chill out man, why you so stressed out? You sound ridiculous worrying about something they know you have no clue about. If you knew the correct answer you wouldn't need to be interviewing, you'd be the one interviewing people.

No kidding. What did you say: you'd rape the surgeon and defecate on the patient?

 

[IlDestriero]

No kidding. What did you say: you'd rape the surgeon and defecate on the patient?

The correct answer for the desert island scenario is to kill the surgeon, making it look like an accident, and let the baby die. Who's the daddy anyway?
That leaves the door open for you to hook up with the young lady after consoling her though this difficult time.
No competition and no distractions.👍

 

[sideways]

The correct answer for the desert island scenario is to kill the surgeon, making it look like an accident, and let the baby die. Who's the daddy anyway?
That leaves the door open for you to hook up with the young lady after consoling her though this difficult time.
No competition and no distractions.👍

Well done. My plan was for the CRNA boards.

 

[WingedOx]

I stop watching grey's anatomy.

I nearly choked on what I was drinking when I read that.

 

[cpants]

I'm surprised by this answer.

Now if we were in the States, in a hospital, yea it's lawsuit-central if either one tries to operate. And they shouldn't.

But we're talking about a Tom Hanks in Castaway type situation here.

Someone either operates and he probably dies (depending on how drunk the surgeon is), or no one does and he certainly dies.

I don't see how you can say the latter is a more ethical option.


Put it another way, if you were the patient on the island, and you have the option of a drunk surgeon or certain death, which would you pick? Err, I'm removing the 3rd year from contention for obvious reasons.

Her answer was valid, probably the best one posted. You don't die from appendicitis in a few hours without surgery. If you were choosing between drunk surgery and certain death, obviously you would choose drunk surgery or even MS3 surgery. Some chance is better than no chance.

 

[sideways]

Her answer was valid, probably the best one posted. You don't die from appendicitis in a few hours without surgery. If you were choosing between drunk surgery and certain death, obviously you would choose drunk surgery or even MS3 surgery. Some chance is better than no chance.

The OP picked appendicitis because he didn't know what he was talking about. The question was clearly about an emergency surgery that needed to be done then or the patient would die. In which case the answer is obvious and the question is stupid. But like you(?) said, this isn't about an actual answer, it's about giving the OP an anxiety attack.

Well done admissions team.

 

[cpants]

On a deserted island, I'd opt for IV antibiotics rather than surgery, but that study leaves a *little* to be desired.

I agree, it's not the best evidence. The randomization is questionable at best. But they did at least address that in the study and examined the migration groups without finding significant differences in demographics, presentation, lab values, etc. Might open the door to a higher quality study in the future. There are obviously large obstacles to studying something as dogmatic as appendectomy for appendicitis with true randomization. Regardless, their intention to treat analysis showed no increased complication for patients in the antibiotic group, with a sizable portion of those patients receiving no surgery within a year of presentation.

I woudn't be surprised if appendicitis ended up becoming a nonoperative or delayed operative disease in the future. It has certainly happened with other previously surgical diseases.

 

[Holderlin]

Is there any cocaine on the island?

I was thinking the same thing. A couple bumps with some water during the improv scrub down will have him good and ready.

If only medicine could be this fun.

 

[Lokhtar]

Her answer was valid, probably the best one posted. You don't die from appendicitis in a few hours without surgery. If you were choosing between drunk surgery and certain death, obviously you would choose drunk surgery or even MS3 surgery. Some chance is better than no chance.

But she said:

I think you would need to conclude that there is no one available to perform the surgery at this time and it is most unfortunate that the patient will die for lack of a provider.

So that's what I was responding to. Obviously if option 'C' exists where you can keep him alive for a few hours and get someone who is qualified and not drunk...then there is no ethical dilemma there.

I was responding to her words that the patient will die because there is no one available to perform the surgery.

But in fact there is. It's simply not a good idea for them to do it. But it sure as hell trumps death.

 

[chadbrochill17]

Yeah I would go ahead with deciding to delay surgery. There is still risk of patient dying during those few hours delay BUT:
Looking on the brighter side, if the patient were to die on this deserted island, it would be a couple days' worth of hunting/gathering you wouldn't have to worry about 😉

 

[BF2BC EMT]

Why did you write appy then? Completely different scenario. Why does the patient need an urgent c-section? You DEFINITELY could not do a c-section after a few assists. If only the baby is at risk, best answer is probably to wait for the c-section until the surgeon sobers up. If both are at risk, probably best to have the drunk surgeon do his best.

I wouldn't sweat it too much. They usually design these questions to have no right answer. Just want to see how you handle pressure. Send your thank you note and hope for the best.

eh, dont know about that, a medic crew a while back came on scene, mom was already dead or was dying cant remember, anyway they did an emergency c-sect and did just fine, although they got they're licenses pulled. I doubt they assisted in any c-sects.

little off topic ABC I think aired a show about drunken surgeons, fake of course, but they had a few 'surgeons' attened a bar at midday and throw a few to many back and hidden cameras would record unsuspected punters to see if they would step in and stop the surgeons before they left to go back and do some emergency case

 

[LEUNIT]

Yeah I would go ahead with deciding to delay surgery. There is still risk of patient dying during those few hours delay BUT:
Looking on the brighter side, if the patient were to die on this deserted island, it would be a couple days' worth of hunting/gathering you wouldn't have to worry about 😉

Yeah, and then you could just eat him afterwards..

 

[cpants]

eh, dont know about that, a medic crew a while back came on scene, mom was already dead or was dying cant remember, anyway they did an emergency c-sect and did just fine, although they got they're licenses pulled. I doubt they assisted in any c-sects.

little off topic ABC I think aired a show about drunken surgeons, fake of course, but they had a few 'surgeons' attened a bar at midday and throw a few to many back and hidden cameras would record unsuspected punters to see if they would step in and stop the surgeons before they left to go back and do some emergency case

Sorry I should have qualified it by saying there is no way you could do a c-section with the mother surviving.

 

[45408]

little off topic ABC I think aired a show about drunken surgeons, fake of course, but they had a few 'surgeons' attened a bar at midday and throw a few to many back and hidden cameras would record unsuspected punters to see if they would step in and stop the surgeons before they left to go back and do some emergency case

Was it called "To Catch a Surgeon"?

 

[Kaustikos]

Was it called "To Catch a Surgeon"?

 

[LizzyM]

I'm surprised by this answer.

Now if we were in the States, in a hospital, yea it's lawsuit-central if either one tries to operate. And they shouldn't.

But we're talking about a Tom Hanks in Castaway type situation here.

I think that we need more information about this island. I honeymooned on an island in the US that does not have a hosptial. Volunteer EMTs are available to escort the sick or injured to the mainland by ferry.

In this interview question, you could be on US soil, subject to US laws, with the supplies typically available in a small town and yet hours from a medical facility. I think that making the assumption that this isn't in the US is unjustified.

Some people will be cautious and accepting of limitations. Others will be bold and brash. There is room in medicine for both.

 

[Lokhtar]

I think that we need more information about this island. I honeymooned on an island in the US that does not have a hosptial. Volunteer EMTs are available to escort the sick or injured to the mainland by ferry.

In this interview question, you could be on US soil, subject to US laws, with the supplies typically available in a small town and yet hours from a medical facility. I think that making the assumption that this isn't in the US is unjustified.

Some people will be cautious and accepting of limitations. Others will be bold and brash. There is room in medicine for both.

But I think in this particular case, do you not have to make the distinction between the legal thing and the ethical thing? Sometimes (perhaps shamefully) one does the legal thing at the expense of the ethical thing.

Now, if EMT are in fact available, then you are correct in that the drunken surgeon or a MS3 should not operate. But then I don't think there is an ethical dilemma.

I just had issue with saying it's more ethical to let the patient die than take a chance to operate. If I were the patient capable of giving consent right there...I'd be like DO IT NOW!

Now the surgeon may refuse to do the surgery for fear of legal concerns, and frankly, I wouldn't blame him - and truthfully there's a good chance I might too if it meant losing my licence and my life's work, etc. But is that the ethical thing?

 

[LizzyM]

But I think in this particular case, do you not have to make the distinction between the legal thing and the ethical thing? Sometimes (perhaps shamefully) one does the legal thing at the expense of the ethical thing.

Now, if EMT are in fact available, then you are correct in that the drunken surgeon or a MS3 should not operate. But then I don't think there is an ethical dilemma.

I just had issue with saying it's more ethical to let the patient die than take a chance to operate. If I were the patient capable of giving consent right there...I'd be like DO IT NOW!

Now the surgeon may refuse to do the surgery for fear of legal concerns, and frankly, I wouldn't blame him - and truthfully there's a good chance I might too if it meant losing my licence and my life's work, etc. But is that the ethical thing?

Is it ethical to go beyond your capacity and training in an attempt to save a life? With the pregnant woman/c-section case you have to balance delivering the baby against contributing to the death of the mother due to a botched operation. If you wind up with a dead mother and a dead baby, what is your defense? Some may even question whether your intervention was necessary in the first place (there are certainly cases where a woman has been told she must have a c-section, she refuses, and the baby is safely delivered vaginally).

I can't think of many circumstances where something is illegal but ethical. I think that it is unethical to operate on a patient while impaired by drugs or alcohol. I think that it is unethical to take a scalpel to a patient's belly if you haven't received the training to do so. I think it is unethical to do so even if being supervised by a physician who is impaired (drunk). I think that it is better to do nothing and lose the patient through no fault of one's own than to do something that one is unqualified to do and cause the death of the patient. Maybe I'm just risk adverse. I know I'm not ballsy enough to be a surgeon (OB included).

 

[sideways]

^I'd bet a lot of money that a drunk surgeon could pull it off just fine in the majority of cases. Certainly not worth allowing someone to die because it's more PC to say that being drunk and operating is bad mmmkay.

 

[getdown]

^I'd bet a lot of money that a drunk surgeon could pull it off just fine in the majority of cases. Certainly not worth allowing someone to die because it's more PC to say that being drunk and operating is bad mmmkay.

You know man, I like the way you think. There's just too much PC in this world currently to the effect that people are so scared of offending anyone that talking to them is like pulling teeth. Obviously you cant go around calling black people the N word and things of that nature but expressing an opinion is perfectly fine. Hell isn't freedom of speech a right we were given by the constitution? Everyone has different opinions on every subject and some of it may piss off someone else but should that fear stifle our freedom of speech? A little PC when appropriate is fine but the extent it pervades current society is just disgusting. If you're so sensitive that every little un-PC thing offends you you should just stay at home and lock yourself away because you're useless to society.

/end rant

Sorry it's just something I feel strongly about.

 

[Lokhtar]

Is it ethical to go beyond your capacity and training in an attempt to save a life?

If the other option is that life won't be saved at all anyway? I mean if the patient had the capacity (and maybe he does), what do you think he would say.

With the pregnant woman/c-section case you have to balance delivering the baby against contributing to the death of the mother due to a botched operation. If you wind up with a dead mother and a dead baby, what is your defense? Some may even question whether your intervention was necessary in the first place (there are certainly cases where a woman has been told she must have a c-section, she refuses, and the baby is safely delivered vaginally).

I don't think that compares. We are not operating against this patient's will and we are not balancing two lives. Assuming our patient is unconscious is it reasonable to assume that he would choose a drunken surgeon over a certain death? I think it is. The only life that is at stake is his.

Now if he had said before he became unconscious to not operate when the option was presented, then of course you respect his wishes.

I think that it is unethical to operate on a patient while impaired by drugs or alcohol. I think that it is unethical to take a scalpel to a patient's belly if you haven't received the training to do so. I think it is unethical to do so even if being supervised by a physician who is impaired (drunk). I think that it is better to do nothing and lose the patient through no fault of one's own than to do something that one is unqualified to do and cause the death of the patient. Maybe I'm just risk adverse. I know I'm not ballsy enough to be a surgeon (OB included).

Well, no one is saying you should allow 3rd year students to operate on you with drunken supervision or that a drunk doctor should operate at the local OR.

But, we're saying, you had a few to drink, and are clearly not in a medical environment and this patient will die unless you choose to do something. Now, impaired and considering the environment, let's say the patient has a 99% chance of death. He likely has a much less chance of death even with an impaired surgeon, but for the sake of argument. I don't see how it's unethical to say that 5% survival is less ethical than 0% just because the former isn't done by the ideal person and conditions.

Or rather, put it this way. You are the patient. You are having X trouble on an island. There is no hope of getting you anywhere and there is a surgeon there (and a med student). Surgeon says he's had a few and he isn't fit to operate. But if he doesn't, you will die. If he does, you might still die, and maybe probably will die.

Would you choose certain death or maybe death? I'd be shocked if you would, because I'd tell the surgeon 'Dude, get your goddamn knife out already.'


I don't see why it's ethical to let the patient die against their wishes - because it's reasonable to assume that the patient would take the small chance at life rather than zero (and even if he wasn't in a state to explicitly give permission, how many would chose certain death?).....

 

[LizzyM]

I would choose not to do something I was untrained to do on the off chance that I could improve on what would happen if nature takes her course.

There are too many assumptions with this whole island thing.... do we have anesthesia, supportive post-operative care. etc. If this is Gilligan's Island, I sure as heck don't want to perform surgery in a grass hut with nothing but a knife and a sewing kit. If someone is unconscious and quite likely to die of disease before the surgeon sobers up enough to safely operate, then I think we ought to let the person slip away with a minimum of suffering than to have him sliced open by an M3 and bleed out or die of infection. We are assuming that surgery will extend life in a meaningful way and depending on what is available on this island, we may be hastening death. While that isn't wrong to hasten death if the intention is to extend life, it wouldn't be where I'd want to go with this.

In the end, this question is a measure of how well you think on your feet and make a reasonable and well reasoned decision. And even if it isn't a great decision, it will not necessarily derail an otherwise strong applicant.

 

[orthomyxo]

Is mayonnaise an instrument?

 

[slatermd]

Is mayonnaise an instrument?

affirmative.

 

[gettheleadout]

Is mayonnaise an instrument?

Horseradish is not an instrument either.

 

[Lokhtar]

I would choose not to do something I was untrained to do on the off chance that I could improve on what would happen if nature takes her course.

There are too many assumptions with this whole island thing.... do we have anesthesia, supportive post-operative care. etc. If this is Gilligan's Island, I sure as heck don't want to perform surgery in a grass hut with nothing but a knife and a sewing kit. If someone is unconscious and quite likely to die of disease before the surgeon sobers up enough to safely operate, then I think we ought to let the person slip away with a minimum of suffering than to have him sliced open by an M3 and bleed out or die of infection. We are assuming that surgery will extend life in a meaningful way and depending on what is available on this island, we may be hastening death. While that isn't wrong to hasten death if the intention is to extend life, it wouldn't be where I'd want to go with this.

Where do the patient's wishes come into play here though? If he knew the risks of that, but still asked you to do it because he'd rather have that chance and take the chance of suffering with the possibility of life, against the perhaps peaceful but certain possibility of death, would you still refuse?

In the end, this question is a measure of how well you think on your feet and make a reasonable and well reasoned decision. And even if it isn't a great decision, it will not necessarily derail an otherwise strong applicant.

Interestingly, my interview season is over and not once I got asked an ethical question. Weird.

I wonder how common they are.

 

[LizzyM]

Where do the patient's wishes come into play here though? If he knew the risks of that, but still asked you to do it because he'd rather have that chance and take the chance of suffering with the possibility of life, against the perhaps peaceful but certain possibility of death, would you still refuse?



Interestingly, my interview season is over and not once I got asked an ethical question. Weird.

I wonder how common they are.

A medical student has no obligation to provide any service to a patient who requests it. A phyician who does not feel capable of safely performing a procedure is not obligated to perform that procedure, even if a patient is demanding the procedure.

Frankly, this whole "island" thing is bull. The more interesting question is: you are a pre-med shadow. (so based on your position NOW) You've been invited by an anesthesiologist to observe a surgery. The surgeon scrubbing seems drunk (slurring words, odor on breath, unsteady on feet). What do you do?

I never ask ethics questions at interview. I have other fish to fry.

 

[cpants]

A medical student has no obligation to provide any service to a patient who requests it. A phyician who does not feel capable of safely performing a procedure is not obligated to perform that procedure, even if a patient is demanding the procedure.

Frankly, this whole "island" thing is bull. The more interesting question is: you are a pre-med shadow. (so based on your position NOW) You've been invited by an anesthesiologist to observe a surgery. The surgeon scrubbing seems drunk (slurring words, odor on breath, unsteady on feet). What do you do?

I never ask ethics questions at interview. I have other fish to fry.

Yes that is a much better question. I would bring it to the anesthesiologist's attention. The next logical question is the anesthesiologist tells you to mind your own business so what do you do now? I would answer that I would probably keep my mouth shut. Your duty to act as a premed shadow is basically nil, and if a whole OR full of nurses, scrub techs, residents, and anesthesiologists is ignoring the situation than there is probably another explanation. Either way you've done your duty by telling the anesthesiologist, and it's on his back now.

 

[ILikeDrugs]

I would splash of bucket of cold ocean water in the docs face to sober em up. I'd then order him to start operating. I'd continue to splash buckets of water in his face until the completion of the surgery. Although, at this point, I'm not sure what's worse: drunken fingers from alcohol or shaky fingers due to cold 55F ocean water.

 

[LizzyM]

I would splash of bucket of cold ocean water in the docs face to sober em up. I'd then order him to start operating. I'd continue to splash buckets of water in his face until the completion of the surgery. Although, at this point, I'm not sure what's worse: drunken finger from alcohol or shaky fingers due to cold 55F ocean water.

I am hoping that none of that ocean water contaminates the surgical field!

 

[BBender716]

what do ya do with a drunken surgeon, what do you with a drunken surgeon, what do you do with a drunken surgeon early in the moorrrrrniinnngggg!

 

[LizzyM]

shave his belly with a rusty razor, shave his belly with a rusty razor, shave his belly with a rusty razor early in the moorrrrrniinnngggg!

 

[BBender716]

shave his belly with a rusty razor, shave his belly with a rusty razor, shave his belly with a rusty razor early in the moorrrrrniinnngggg!

Wahoo! I'm glad we've solved this ethical dilemma. 😀

 

[juliedi]

what do ya do with a drunken surgeon, what do you with a drunken surgeon, what do you do with a drunken surgeon early in the moorrrrrniinnngggg!

👍 I definitely was humming that to myself too