Physicians are required to gain informed consent prior to administering a treatment. Informed consent is gained by providing patients with a full accounting of the risks of the treatment as documented in peer-reviewed, published medical/scientific literature.
Your scenario of surgeons being flummoxed by unhappy patients complaining after surgery doesn't hold water. The rules of professional medical ethics require that the treating physician be well versed in the published literature on the treatments he delivers.
There is a mountain of published research (spanning nearly a century) documenting the adverse effects of sympathectomy. There are numerous studies, for example, showing very high rates of severe side effects and studies showing that satisfaction diminishes substantially over the long term.
It is a doctors job to know this stuff and it is their ethical duty to disclose that information to patients.
So, I see the blame thing as pretty cut and dry. Surgeons perfoming sympathectomies routinely withhold information vital to informed consent. Anyone who does objective comparison between what is documented in medical/scientific literature and what is typically disclosed to prospective ETS patients has no choice but reach this conclusion.
And, to make matters worse, many surgeons use testimonials from a hand-selected group of their happiest patients to advocate the surgery. That practice is considered unethical by all medical professional organizations.
http://etsandreversals.yuku.com/directory
