In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court of India has brought attention to the controversial issue of live surgery broadcasts, expressing serious concerns about the impact of this practice on patient safety and medical ethics. The court, addressing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), discussed the challenges posed by broadcasting live medical surgeries to trainee doctors and medical professionals during conferences. With a particular focus on informed consent, patient risk, and ethical implications, the case is stirring a broad conversation within India’s medical and legal circles.
Why Live Surgery Broadcasts Are Under Scrutiny
Live Surgery Broadcasts (LSB) have been increasingly utilized by medical professionals and organizations such as the All India Ophthalmological Society to educate and demonstrate complex procedures to large audiences. However, as this PIL suggests, the practice may have unintended risks, especially for patients from lower economic backgrounds who may agree to live broadcast procedures for surgery fee waivers without fully understanding the implications.
A key concern, raised by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan on behalf of the petitioners, is that the surgeon’s attention could be divided when performing surgeries under the pressure of a live audience. The setup often includes up to 800 observers at medical conferences who engage with the operating surgeon through questions while the procedure is underway. This interaction, critics argue, compromises patient safety as it detracts from the surgeon’s focus.
Legal and Ethical Dimensions of Live Surgery Broadcasts
The petitioners have cited several ethical and legal issues in their plea to the Supreme Court, emphasizing concerns about informed consent and the motivations behind live broadcasts. They argue that these broadcasts may prioritize advertising and sponsorship rather than pure medical education, further stating that economic incentives can sway vulnerable patients to undergo these risky procedures.
The case also references a tragic incident from 2015 in which a live surgery broadcast in Delhi resulted in a patient’s death, highlighting the serious consequences of dividing a surgeon’s focus between patient care and audience engagement. The petitioners contend that such practices undermine the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship and violate medical ethics. Given these concerns, the petitioners have called for the National Medical Commission (NMC) to set up a monitoring committee to create and enforce guidelines on live surgery broadcasts.
Supreme Court’s Response to Patient Safety and Locus Issues
During the hearing, Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan acknowledged the critical importance of the issue, noting that live surgery broadcasts are indeed a matter of state policy and could have significant public health implications. Although the petitioners’ legal standing (locus) to file the PIL was questioned by counsel for the respondents, the court emphasized that the gravity of the issue outweighs questions of locus, reiterating, “For serious cause, we don’t care about the locus.”
However, the case had to be adjourned because representatives from the Union of India and the NMC were absent. Recognizing the importance of their presence, the court directed the Registry to inform the Standing Counsel for NMC and the Attorney General’s office to ensure their attendance in future proceedings.
Medico-Legal Society of India Joins the Case
The Supreme Court allowed Dr. Rajiv Joshi, a representative of the Medico-Legal Society of India, to intervene in the case, providing an additional layer of expertise to the debate. The Society will assist the court by providing insights on the medico-legal aspects of live surgery broadcasts. Their involvement signifies the growing recognition within the medical and legal communities of the potential ethical pitfalls of live surgery broadcasts.
Global Perspective: Live Surgery Broadcasts Banned in Many Countries
Interestingly, live surgery broadcasts are prohibited in many countries, as noted by the counsel for the petitioners. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan compared the practice to a sports scenario, stating that it is akin to a professional player, like Virat Kohli, both playing cricket and commentating simultaneously. He argued that live broadcasts are unnecessary distractions and referenced countries where such practices are banned to emphasize the need for regulation in India.
Petitioners’ Demand for Comprehensive Guidelines
The petitioners have asked for the Apex Medical Commission to establish a set of comprehensive guidelines and a committee to regulate live surgery broadcasts in India. These guidelines would address informed consent, patient safety, and the commercial aspects of such broadcasts. Furthermore, the petitioners suggested the need for regular monitoring to ensure that live surgeries are conducted ethically, preserving the primary focus on patient care and safety.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s engagement in this debate highlights the pressing need to balance medical education with ethical patient care. The potential risks of live surgery broadcasts have sparked discussions about the safety and ethics of using patients as learning tools in the public eye. As the case progresses, India’s medical and legal systems may soon have a clearer framework that both supports medical education and respects the safety and dignity of patients.
This case is a powerful reminder that healthcare innovation must always place patient welfare at the forefront. Through responsible and ethical practices, the medical community can continue advancing education without compromising the sacred doctor-patient relationship.
To register for our next masterclass please click here https://linktr.ee/docpreneur
