I'm not aware of any such cases either (I'll leave out some of the suspect obesity treatments I see adults get, while I suspect they are sub optimal, I am not a medical expert, nor do I believe it is some great moral outrage for adults to choose such, but I do believe we need to criticize the profit motive)

My point is, I think that when we have a medical system and industry that is profit driven, the answer to your question "do we give gastric bypass surgery to minors with anorexia" is "does that make us money" and not "is that what's best for the patient."

There are a great number of moral doctors along with amoral doctors, not everyone is going to go along with blatant profiteering at the expense of the patients, but the simple process of social darwinism here does lead to a "survival of the fittest" mechanism.

In nature, there is no sense of morality in evolution. If an organism reproduces more it "wins" the game. Even if such wins destroy the local environment (see overpopulation of predators or herbivores when balances are upset) it doesn't effect the individual, who wins. With business the win condition is set to "who makes the most money" and while many won't be playing by that rule, others will, and as long as we don't have a social framework in place to keep doctors working in their patients best interests (and profit motives I'm absolutely in favor of, skilled and good doctors should get more money) that shouldn't be reflected in terms of sales (for example a doctor who finds a way to sell less medicine and keep his patients happy and healthy should be valued more than a doctor who prescribes more medicine, our system will merely reward the doctor with the higher sales with the financial benefits)

One of the biggest failings of communism was the bizzare notion that people would somehow forgo the allure of wealth, and will simply pursue morally superior pursuits once the "oppression of capitalism" is removed. I disagree with that notion. I think that the allure of wealth and power are inescapable realities of the human condition. And that given the proper environment humans are capable of comitting great evil on others for their own benefit. As such, we need to structure society in ways where the interests of the individual are in line with the interests of society as a whole. This isn't easy, or perfectly achievable. But it can be enforced through some legislation. In the American sense, I think the most effective way would be to ban medical advertising, especially for prescription drugs. I see no real moral significance between TV adverts hawking anti-depressents than I would if they were advertising heroin. In fact, I think the only real difference between the two is the latter does have a real risk of killing you now, and that limits the medical industry ability to profit from the addiction. Which is why they are against it. I feel a similar situation exists with tobacco, which while undeniably bad for you, is given a stigma in American society far outreaching it's actual danger. I situation I feel has come about due to the medical industry realizing that it's probably more profitable to sell various stress relief and anti-depressents medications than having a population hopped up on mild stimulants.

Don't get me wrong, tobacco is bad for you, and of course you are better off to abstain from it. But in the American sense I've noticed a stigma towards tobacco so insanely strong as if it's seen as akin to criminal activity. And I don't think this situation is in any way organic.