Even if you are paying the entire bill yourself, I don’t see why a doctor should be compelled to treat a patient he reasonably believes stands more chance of dying on the table or succumbing to post-op infection than actually benefiting from the procedure.
Exactly!
No doctor is obliged to perform any procedure that the doctor feels is not appropriate to perform on a given patient. Benefits must outweigh risks.
Did my post somehow imply that doctors should operate under those conditions? That certainly wasn’t my intent. Just that if the risk/benefit is positive, but let’s say extra post-op rehab is needed, someone is paying for that. If you are a cash pay healthcare customer, dollars to doughnuts it’s you paying.
What kind of doughnuts? Cake? Yeast? Who pays? 
[Homer Simpson]Mmmm. Doughnuts. Mmmmm.[/Homer Simpson]
Nope, it just means your insurance may not cover it; you can still get the operation if you can afford it.
I can understand that some people prefer a system where care is governed by bureaucratic fiat instead of by money; but cases like this give the lie to the assumption by some that nationalized health care has no downsides.