I want to develop what I wrote a bit further. The ethical principles involved in a case such as one presented is that of patient autonomy and the surgeon's requirement for beneficence toward the patient. Patient autonomy means that the patient makes their own medical or surgical decisions after being informed the risks vs benefits by the physician. If there are multiple choices available, the physician may suggest choices in an order of benefit and risk but it is the patient that makes the final decision. That order should be based on established facts and experience and not on the physician's own personal needs or values.

Physician beneficence means that the physician in a patient-doctor relationship is motivated only toward the best interest of his or her patient in both the advice and actions taken. The intent being to "do good" for the patient. Conflicts of interest or secondary gain on the part of the physician must be avoided. If either the principle of autonomy or beneficence is not followed by the physician, as concluded after investigation, then one may say that the physician acted unethically. ..Maurice.