Brand New Sentence

Moral obligation?

Do they have one for anything on the job? Not molesting patients fits.

Seriously. Morals implies some sense of right and wrong. That's very hard to apply with cosmetic surgery since an ethical doctor is supposed to take the entirety of the patient's history and needs into account. There are cases where performing a given procedure that is objectively risky may still be ethically sound to perform because other aspects of the patient's life shift the line.

A moral doctor would most likely follow professional ethics as that's what's right as a doctor. But even there, the ethics of one specialty don't apply perfectly to all specialties.

Mind you, I'm going off the more common distinction between morals and ethics. Not all sources treat them as having a difference, but I find it useful to use the common distinction that morals are an inner sense of right and wrong, whether gained by external sources or not; and ethics are collective agreement on what is and isn't acceptable in a given situation.

Dcotors have professional ethics, but may have personal morals that conflict with them.

In the case of extreme cosmetic surgery and body modifications, ethically, they would largely be bound to not perform a procedure that's unsafe. But large implants can be done safely, and may serve the needs of the patient better than smaller alternatives. A surgeon doing those implants may well be doing something that causes one form of harm to the patient (and nothing that big being implanted in the breast area is without harm of some kind).

But if they're a competent surgeon and follow best practices while doing it, then they may be considered to reduce harm by insuring that the procedure outcome is as close to ideal as possible. If the patient is truly determined, there will be ways to get something done, and it may well end up being far worse. That is actually the argument that surgeons doing these unusual extreme procedures give. And they have a point. It's definitely better than someone ending up with caulk injected into them.

So, I'm not sure that size should be the defining limit. While I might not be willing to perform such a procedure were I a doctor, I really don't see it as a problem of size as much as it is making sure that the implants themselves can be placed safely with acceptable long term risks being factored in. Some of that comes down to the patient, so I can't have an absolute limit via size.

Now, there would likely be a practical limit anyway. Can I get a 10kcc implant into place at all? Not likely. That's going to take some unusual prep and work. That skin can only stretch so much at once even if I could get the implant in right. But that's practical, not moral or ethical.

Caveat is that I'm as close to an absolutist as I get with body autonomy. So I do have a moral stance that errs on the side that the patient has a right to do what they want with their body, though I wouldn't be obligated to do it just because of that. That's my bias; that for anyone else to say that person isn't allowed to have implants of whatever size they want is a moral wrong, and must only be applied with great care and limited scope.