  My cousin recently had surgery for endometriosis. During the procedure her Gynecologist found an inguinal hernia. He took pictures of it and informed her about what he had found after the surgery. My cousin was 22 years old at the time of her surgery and was responsible for giving the consent required to perform the repair of the hernia. Her mother had been with her at all of her doctor appointments and was there in the waiting room of the hospital during the surgery. When my cousin heard about the hernia and that her doctor had not tried to fix it at the time she was very confused. She did not understand why her mother could not give consent for her. The doctor had said that it could have been taken care of at the same time if they had had consent.
I understand all of the legal issues surrounding her case. I know that, had they gone ahead with the surgery without her consent, they could have faced a heafty law suit especially if something had gone wrong. My question is this; why don't physicians or the hospital offer the option to give consent for such a procedure? If they had found cancer they did not have consent to remove it if possible. Hospitals and patients alike could benefit from such provisions.
Many patients may choose to avoid having surgery again due to the associated risks. Had they been able to fix two problems at once the insurance companies would have to cover both procedures, but only one hospitalization. In her case, the hospital would have saved, at the very least, $10,000 due to the medicine that was required for her to undergo both procedures. Is it on the part of the doctor that the second procedure was not performed. Was this a ploy to have her come in again in order to be reimbursed more for a second opperation? 
