Along with carefully obtaining the informed consent of patients, it also is essential to establish a system that guarantees the safety of patients, such as instituting a practice of gaining second opi

If your doctor differs on either the diagnosis or treatment after you get the second opinion don't assume that the doctor who gives you better news is the correct one. Just because you like the answers better doesn't mean he or she is right and don't assume that your second doctor is correct either because if the second doctor's opinion is always the correct one you would not have gone to the first one. Also if the doctor is pleasant and has good bedside manners that doesn't mean he or she is a better practitioner. However if the doctor's opinion are very different, you should consider getting a third opinion and most likely his or her opinion will most likely be similar to either the first or second doctor, and that will help you to make your treatment decisions. In the end your intuition can help in all decision-making so let your intuitive mind work in your favor.

Neither informed consent nor second opinions are the real issue here, it is the competency to conduct these laparoscopic procedures. Many of these laparoscopic or keyhole surgeons are gastroenterologists, not fully-qualified surgeons. When the procedure goes amiss, there should always be the option of immediately reverting to open surgery, with a proper qualified surgeon, with clearer fields of view and more space to handle the organs/ tissues. Trying to carry on and stem excessive bleeding or inadvertent tissue damage through a laparoscope is asking for trouble.

There was a situation in Tokyo around 10~12 years ago, again using laparoscopic equipment, with the equipment salesman advising a pair of inexperienced, untrained, unsupervised surgeons in the OR how to use their new product, resulting in the deaths of patients.