Abstract: Ethics and Professionalism with Snapchat Use in Plastic Surgery

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Ethical and professional concerns have been raised with live broadcasts of plastic surgery on new social media platforms like Snapchat. Many surgeons have since called for the development of more structured oversight in this area.1–3 We therefore preformed a systematic review of what is, in fact, known about such ethical and professional implications and conducted an ethical analysis of these issues. METHODS: MEDLINE was queried using the terms: “plastic surgeon”, “plastic surgery”, “social media”, “ethics”, “professionalism”, and “snapchat”. Abstract review of all articles was performed. For the ethics analysis, the four principles of medical ethics (4P) were used.4 The 4P’s include: 1) patient autonomy, 2) beneficence, 3) nomaleficence, and 4) justice. Related principles include disclosure and informed consent. RESULTS: Initial search yielded 87 articles, of which 34 articles met final inclusion criteria that were relevant to social media use in plastic surgery. No peer-reviewed articles were found that discussed the social media application of Snapchat, nor were there any articles that addressed the ethical and professional implications of sharing plastic surgery videos live on social media platforms. While entertainment itself is not per-se unethical and has its role if done tactfully, there are concerns of trivializing situations where patients are under anesthesia and are at risk of serious harm. Increasingly greater opportunities for patient harm exist as one progresses from primary(used directly for patient care) to tertiary (widely accessible social media) uses of patient visual and audio recordings - among tertiary uses, this risk further increases with minimally edited live posts.5 The surgeon risks little potential self-harm unless there is a breach in patient confidentiality or videos are posted without consent, which can result in litigation. Meanwhile, patients risk their images being copied, manipulated, and redistributed, as well as possible revelation of their identity. The patient may carry the unequal risk burden. CONCLUSION: Though the ethics are questionable for certain aspects of sharing live videos of plastic surgery on social media, these issues remain largely unexamined in the literature. Further inquiry and discussion is warranted with the aim of upholding the highest level of professionalism with the use of novel social media platforms in plastic surgery. Reference Citations: 1. Teitelbaum S, “Social media fame may be tacky, but is it unethical?” Plastic Surgery News. 2016 Oct. 2. Fine N, Schierle C, Dorfman R, “Social media poses new challenges in ethics and professionalism.” Plastic Surgery News. 2016 Dec; i8:26. 3. Wischhover C, “The Dr. Miami Effect: How Plastic Surgeons are Grappling with Snapchat.” Racked. 2016 May 23. Available at: http://www.racked.com/2016/5/23/11723482/dr-miami-plastic-surgeons-snapchat. 4. Beauchamp TL & Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009. 5. General Medical Council. Making and using visual and audio recordings of patients: Contents. London, 2011. Available at: http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/7818.asp.