> Ethicists and medical officials, including those at the American College of Surgeons, have cautioned that surveilling surgeons to deter malpractice may undermine trust in doctors, hurt morale, violate patient privacy and discourage physicians from taking risks to save lives.
It seems that cause and effect are switched: cameras are installed because trust is low, not the other way around. If physicians are taking risks that cannot be justified, video-recorded or not, then maybe those risks shouldn't be taken.
In any case, these claims of lowering trust, morale, privacy, and efficacy are pure speculations. We need data to support these claims. Before any data is firm presented, it seems reasonable to at least consider installing cameras to catch these criminals.
A surgeon might choose to let you die in a bland but predictable way if they think they might be sued for their heroic (but perhaps not RCT proven safe) efforts.
I agree that bad surgeons and immoral practices need to be stopped but the line between best intentions and unjustifiable risks isn't black and white when you step outside the textbook cases.
It seems that cause and effect are switched: cameras are installed because trust is low, not the other way around. If physicians are taking risks that cannot be justified, video-recorded or not, then maybe those risks shouldn't be taken.
In any case, these claims of lowering trust, morale, privacy, and efficacy are pure speculations. We need data to support these claims. Before any data is firm presented, it seems reasonable to at least consider installing cameras to catch these criminals.