Kipnis’s fictional account of the televised treatment of
Elaine Robbins clearly shows the surgeon’s negligence
(Kipnis 2011). The problems with Anodyne’s support for
the telesurgery breakfast are harder to discern, but show
up clearly when we take into consideration how surgical
evidence is generated, evaluated, and used by surgeons.
Current evidentiary practices in surgery have two major
weaknesses, related to the epistemic culture of surgery and
to practices of knowledge transmission. We argue that this
is a systemic problem, which companies such as Anodyne
both contribute to and benefit from. Thus, while we agree
with Kipnis’s claim that Anodyne is complicit in creating
“conditions of danger,” we believe that Anodyne’s contributory
roles extend beyond creating moral hazards for susceptible
surgeons and harms for individual patients.