Abstract
Abstract
A surgeon performing a retroperitoneal procedure inadvertently begins dissecting the wrong kidney. The error is recognized intraoperatively, the correct structure is identified, and the procedure is completed successfully. The patient suffers no measurable clinical harm. The institution classifies the event as a near-miss, and no disclosure is initiated. This paper argues that the classification, while legally defensible, is morally inadequate. The absence of measurable clinical harm does not eliminate the ethical obligations a serious procedural error generates; it displaces them onto forms of harm—relational, professional, and institutional—that the standard harm-based framework cannot capture. Drawing on Bernard Williams’s concept of moral residue and Nussbaum’s account of shame and concealment, the paper argues that patients have a right to know that a serious error occurred in their care even when it produced no measurable injury, and that the near-miss framework, while valuable as a learning instrument, mischaracterizes the ethical obligations such errors generate. A central section examines the etiology of the error—institutional failure, diagnostic insufficiency, and individual inattention—and defends an invariance thesis: what varies with etiology is the remediation owed and the party who owes it, not the patient’s claim to an honest account of what occurred in her own body. The invariance follows from the framework: an obligation fluctuating with the cause of an error would track culpability rather than the relational structure of the encounter. A framework of relational disclosure is proposed as an alternative grounded in the ethics of trust, recognition, and institutional integrity.