It is the same as the patient not knowing that they had a ghost surgery conducted on them. The patient has the right to know that someone else will be performing the surgery in case they want to decline from having the surgery. The patient may not want a student to be cutting on them. Furthermore, it is wrong for the patient not to know everything before signing the release, which includes the procedures of ghost surgery. However, in cases like Shorter v. Drury in 1985 where the patient knew the consequences of her procedure, which was major blood loss and she would need blood transfusions in order to recover. She refused to give the physician permission to give her blood if she needed it. Unfortunately, she died because the physician could not give her blood. In this sense, the patient knew what was going on and knew the consequence of not having the blood...

Drury). With that, if the patient knows about the ghost surgery or procedure, it would not seem as if their rights were being invaded by physicians and the hospital. However, since the patient does not know about the ghost surgery, it is wrong.
Even though ghost surgery is a necessary component of the medical system in order to train medical students, it is wrong. It is wrong because the patient is unaware of what is going on even if he or she signed a release form. The patient has the right to know who is performing surgery on him or her.

Bibliography

Quinbee. (1963). Retrieved April 21, 2012, from Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California: http://www.quimbee.com/cases/707263

Quinbee. (1985). Retrieved April 21, 2012, from Shorter v. Drury: http://www.quimbee.com/cases/707252