Man Sues Doctors For Amputating Penis

What part of “circumcision” was unclear? That’s basically what a Kentucky man and his wife are asking of two doctors who cut off the man’s penis while he was under the knife. The doctors say they discovered cancer and made an emergency decision. The man says, dude, wtf, you cut off my penis. It doesn’t grow back, and it was kind of important to me.

The lawsuit states that Patterson received consent to perform a circumcision and only a circumcision, and that Seaton did not consent to his penis being removed.

Kevin George, the plaintiff’s attorney, said [Dr.] Patterson amputated the organ after finding cancer, but he only had consent to remove the foreskin.

“Sometimes you have an emergency and you have to do this, but he could very easily closed him up and said, ‘Here are your options. You have cancer,’ and the family would have said, ‘We want a second opinion. This is a big deal,’” George said.

We’ve just made a new note to self: if we ever have surgery, we intend to grab the doctor by the collar and say vigorously to him, “No matter what happens, don’t you cut off my penis.” Who knew you had to worry about that sort of thing.

Watch the video report on the story at WLKY.com.

“Man Sues Doctors After Penis Amputated” [WLKY] (Thanks to Jay!)
(Photo: Getty)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Echelon1566 says:

    Holy eff. How could they have the lawful right to make that decision?

    • chatterboxwriting says:

      @Echelon1566: He shouldn’t have. Before you go under the knife, you sign an informed consent form. When I had a laparotomy to have an ovarian mass removed, I also had to sign consent for removal of my ovaries, uterus, and fallopian tubes if they discovered malignancy. If I had not signed that form, and they did find something, they would have had to sew me up and then asked me for consent and gone back in again.

      • craftypants says:

        @chatterboxwriting:

        Yes but you went in for investigation of an unknown mass with the possibility that whatever they found would need speedy removal, he went in for an routine circumsision and no idea that there was anything wrong with his rather important…..thing

        apples and oranges

        • hank18 says:

          @craftypants: I think chatterboxwriting was just trying to say that she had signed a consent form to have anything removed. Since the man in the article apparently had not signed such a form, this was a very rash decision on the doctor’s part.

  2. dragonfire81 says:

    I wonder if the surgeon’s last name was Bobbitt…

  3. mgy says:

    Reminds me a lot of this story:

    [www.wftv.com]

    I’ll be in the corner, shuddering.

    • kingmanic says:

      @mgy: Her case sounds plausible. It’s only news because of the contentions with the “patients right to know” law. The hospital interprets it as “sue us and we’ll tell you.”

    • freepistol says:

      @mgy:
      holy crap, that story is just like one that was on oprah yesterday. a woman had a baby in august of last year, and had flesh eating bacteria and they amputatied her arms and legs. it was of course with her knowledge but how bizzare that it happened to another woman, nearly exactly the same only a few months beforehand.

      note to self, do not have a c section in certain hospitles, you might lose your limbs.

    • kalmakazee says:

      @mgy:

      This reminds me of the David Reimer story! It’s such a sad story. :-(

  4. Mr.SithNinja says:

    OMG! How do you not wake the guy up first and ask him if it is ok to cut off his junk? WOW!

  5. cookmefud says:

    they should get to amputate his penis now, sans permission.

  6. TacoDave says:

    I went in to get my hair cut, and they ended up with a frontal lobotomy. This kind of stuff happens!

  7. TheSpatulaOfLove says:

    I don’t mean to be a dick, but if the cancer was threatening to kill him, what good would his penis be to him dead?

    • @TheSpatulaOfLove: cannnnnnot resssssist…..

      He’ll prolly get more use outta his dick when he’s dead than you get outta your’s while you’re alive.

      sorry i am sure your penis is marvelous and that you get much use out of it.

    • mythago says:

      @TheSpatulaOfLove: Do you really think that the cancer was JUST ABOUT TO KILL HIM and the doctors had no choice but to immediately amputate? It’s cancer, not gangrene.

    • CAK says:

      @TheSpatulaOfLove:

      I’m not a doctor, but I’ve never heard of cancer of the penis that is killing people so quickly that they couldn’t have woken him up, told him about it, and let him decide for himself (or get a second opinion).

      • @CAK: THAT PENIS IS GONNA BLOW! CUT IT OFF QUICK!!! (Please don’t ban me Roz.)

      • christoj879 says:

        @CAK: Uh, hello, yes, this is… uh… this is Tom Tucker’s personal physician, Dr. T and the Women. Um, could you tell Tom his contagious penis cancer medicine is ready?

        • TheSpatulaOfLove says:

          @All of you:

          It was a joke, sheesh! Tough crowd around here.

          I guess this guy’s gonna be major rich, and now go out and buy a Corvette or a Viper… (yes, another dick joke)

          • sodden says:

            @TheSpatulaOfLove: Dude, that wasn’t a joke. It might have been a hoax, as you pretended to not understand the concept of 2nd opinions, but it wasn’t a joke.

            If you scream “Fire” in a crowded theater, expect to get beaten up and/or arrested. Claiming it was a joke after the fact won’t prevent it.

            In the future, if you want to practice that brand of humor without rancor, try stating that it’s a joke IN the post somehow. If you can’t do that, at least try to make it obvious that you’re not serious. Heck, make it subtle even.

        • crouton976 says:

          @christoj879: Is this Peter? =)

      • Aisley says:

        @CAK:

        And you’re oh so right Spatula! Does the words Armstrong and cyclist remind you of anything? That’s exactly what he had, and that was few years ago, mind you.

        What makes me wonder if I should laugh or cry, is the doctor’s excuse: “we found cancer”. Really? Without a biopsy? I’m no doctor myself, I’m not even going to pretend that I know about the medicine field. But after watching so many tv shows about real doctors and emergency rooms; one thing I have learn for certain. And it is the fact that a doctor can tell you with a very good degree of certainty that what he’s seeing on the X rays, the MRI, the ultrasound, etc., may be cancer. But the amazing thing is that almost no one can tell if a mass or tissue they’re looking at (in the flesh) is cancer. Cancerous tissue does not have an specific look. That’s why every surgeon that perform surgery to explore or remove tissue or mass will send it to the lab; even before the patient comes back from the anestetia. THE LAB AND ONLY THE LAB CAN CONFIRM IF THE MASS IS CANCER OR NOT!!!!!!!!!!

        Didn’t that doctor know Armstrong story? Some “weird” things were going on with his pencil. He decided to go to the doctor, and after some test and a BIOPSY, the doctor told him that he had cancer.

        Now talking directly to you dr. demento, if the guy just wanted a circumcission, what were you looking for INSIDE his pencil when all you had to do was remove the foreskin? If I were the guy, no if I were the guy’s wife I would sue you for your bank accounts, your house, your cars, your membership in the country club, your last name AND YOUR PENIS

        • I speak Jive. says:

          @Aisley: Penile cancer grows on the outside, not the inside. Once he removed the foreskin it was probably quite obvious. And unlike those shows on TV, penile cancer is pretty unmistakable; if you’ve seen it once, it’s pretty easy to pick up after that.

          And Lance Armstrong had testicular, not penile cancer. Big difference.

    • @TheSpatulaOfLove: What if the doctor was wrong? Nobody is perfect.

    • Pious_Augustus says:

      @TheSpatulaOfLove:

      And the problem here is that for one, it may be against is reilgion or he wanted to get some other form of treatment. Removing the area surrounding the cancer does not always fully get rid of the cancer nor it is the only method of trying to get rid of it.

    • chenry says:

      @TheSpatulaOfLove: I hardly think there is any instance of cancerous ding-a-lings that requires immediate amputation. It’s cancer, not a time bomb attached to his crotch.

      Hell, I think I’d rather keep the cancerous prick and just bang my life away with hookers instead of having it chopped off.

  8. nsv says:

    Well, circumcision, penisectomy… they sound so similar.

    I’m not blaming the victim here, but I am curious. Why get a circumcision anyway?

    • mythago says:

      @nsv: Some uncircumcised men develop a condition called phimosis, where the foreskin is too tight and can’t be retracted. The guy may also have been undergoing a religious conversion. It doesn’t say, but in any case, there are reasons to have it done as an adult.

      • ViperBorg says:

        @mythago: Yep, I’m glad I had mine done when I was a kid.

        And that the doctor knew not to chop my junk off.

      • JorgeM says:

        @mythago:

        One doesn’t develop phimosis, as in men don’t have a fully retractable foreskin and then have it magically reattach itself to the head of the penis.

        There are actually two main kinds of phimosis:
        Congenital phimosis is the normal phimosis that a newborn has when he’s born. It resolves itself by puberty and is a normal developmental process. Doctors who don’t know what they are doing will prescribe circumcision to “correct” this normal process.

        Iatrogenic phimosis is generally caused by improper care as a newborn and child. American doctors, being circumcision fanatics, usually don’t know much about foreskins. When a a parent does the right thing and doesn’t circumcise, the doctor will sometimes advise the parent to retract at every diaper change. A child that young will have congenital phimosis and this premature retraction will cause tearing, bleeding, infection, and a lot of pain. The foreskin will attempt to reattach to the glans and will form scar tissue in places. When the boy’s foreskin starts to naturally detach, this scar tissue will remain attached, causing iatrogenic phimosis. American doctors will eagerly recommend circumcision to correct their mistake, but really, the tissue just needs to be stretched out and will detach on its own. Worst case, the scar tissue itself just needs to be cut, leaving the foreskin intact.

        Probably more than you want to know about phimosis, but most Americans are woefully misinformed. I had to learn all of this so my son wouldn’t have problems caused by improper medical care.

        • I speak Jive. says:

          @JorgeM: I think you’re missing the point. Phimosis can, and does, occur in uncircumcised ADULTS, regardless of whether their parents retracted their foreskins or not. In many cases, like this one, circumcision is requested by the patient. Circumcision is also requested for reasons like “she likes it better without a hood.”

          This case was of an ADULT man with phimosis. So whatever the reason he developed it (infection, poor hygiene) he obviously consented to a circumcision. The problem with the story begins after that fact, not before.

      • bdgbill says:

        @mythago: Some uncircumcised men also develop the condition of their wives saying “ewww there is NO WAY i’m putting that ugly thing in my mouth”. This may also have been the cause of the surgery.

    • silver-bolt says:

      @nsv: There is such thing as foreskin cancer as well.

    • Caduceus says:

      @nsv: Interestingly, men who have not had a circumcision are more likely to develop penile skin cancer, which might have been the reason for the surgery in the first place.

  9. Kicken says:

    If this somehow got a jury trial (or a trial at all) I foresee the defense having a very hard time getting a jury that doesn’t already have some feeling about the removing of a man’s penis.

  10. Fly Girl says:

    I’m asking this in all seriousness: What circumstances would lead to a grown man opting to have a circumcision? (Other than a religious conversion, I guess…)

    And what kind of cancer would be in a man’s penis?! Is there really penis cancer? I knew there was testicular cancer. And rectal cancer. But penis cancer? I’ve never heard of penis cancer.

    And if the doctor was just doing a circumcision, wouldn’t that just involve snipping the foreskin? Unless the tumor was, like, hiding out underneath the foreskin, how would the doctor even KNOW he had penis cancer?…

    It sounds like the doctor made a boo-boo while making the snip-snip and cut off a little too much… I hope the poor man and his wife sue them to the high heavens– and I also hope they make the doctor prove that there WAS cancer in his peen.

    • johnva says:

      @Fly Girl: Uh, yes, that kind of cancer most certainly exists. But it’s a bit more rare than most other “male” cancers.

      What I’m wondering about is why he was under general anesthesia for this in the first place. It seems like a circumcision could easily be done under local (hell, people used to do it with NO pain relief thousands of years ago).

      As for the why, I do think there are some possible, though rare, medical reasons why someone might opt for that as an adult.

      • Zyzzyva100 says:

        @johnva:

        I also wondered why this was done under general anesthesia. Seems like something that could have been done with lidocaine and a benzo for conscious sedation, or at most propofol (which is pretty much instant on/instant off) – then at least they could have woken him up to let them know what was going on. I think there may be more to this story than we are getting, or else just some rather negligent surgeons.

      • chatterboxwriting says:

        @johnva: Good question. I was going to ask why he had general anesthetic versus a local, and then I saw your comment. They do similar procedures with just a local, so there must be have been some concern with doing it that way.

      • mythago says:

        @johnva: The lawsuit claims he did not consent to general anesthesia, either. Often general anesthesia is preceded by a shot and/or IV anesthetic to relax the patient – maybe he thought he was getting Demerol and then they put him all the way under.

      • sruss13 says:

        @johnva: Thousands of years ago? Babies are circumcised every day in this country without pain relief.

        • Caduceus says:

          @sruss13: Hospitalized infant males are given local anesthesia for circumcisions, that is standard of care.

          • sruss13 says:

            @Caduceus: Having just had an infant boy in a hospital that does not routinely use anesthesia for routine infant circumcision, I can say that it is not the standard of care to use local. The AAP says that “more data should be obtained from large controlled studies before local anesthesia is advocated as an integral part of newborn circumcision.”

            • British Benzene says:

              @sruss13: My son had local anesthesia for his circ. over 7 years ago in a small-town hospital in Kentucky. They also managed not to cut any extra off. A lot of times it is a matter of the pediatrician’s preference and training. Younger PedMDs are more likely to make it standard.

    • @Fly Girl: I had a friend who had a circumcision as an adult because he… um… “outgrew” his foreskin. They had to remove it because it was constantly tearing.

    • ironchef says:

      @Fly Girl: cancer can occur on any tissue of the body.

    • nerdychaz says:

      @Fly Girl: Phimosis. As you grow older (even in your teens) your foreskin can shrink. Then imagine having an erection as it stretches the foreskin and causes several micro-fissures. Undaunted by the pain you have become used to, you continue to have sex. Bacteria and blood borne diseases find their way in. The micro-fissures may have even become bigger during sex and can split the skin down the penis. Imagine if the micro-fissures become infected. Your penis oozing puss from it’s foreskin. It is better to tackle this problem before it becomes a problem. Many uncircumcised men experience Phimosis and don’t see a doctor.

      Also, the foreskin can be a breeding ground for foul smelling anaerobic bacteria forming disgusting blobs. This is where the term “dick cheese” comes from.

      Furthermore, the foreskin can trap viruses from STD’s and make it easier to catch an STD. It has been said that circumcision can be one of the best things you can do to prevent the transmission of HIV-AIDS. Don’t believe me? [www.medicalnewstoday.com]

      • sruss13 says:

        @nerdychaz: Nope. Don’t believe you. Prevention HIV is just the newest excuse to circumcise infants in this country. There have been others in the past, and there will be more, even though the AAP has finally said that it’s medically unnecessary. The majority of men in the world are not circumcised. We tend to forget that here. [www.circumcisionandhiv.com]

        • The Porkchop Express says:

          @sruss13: how about all the other stuff he just said though. Don’t just take part of his arguement and throw out the rest.

          Anyway, it doesn’t matter why this dude was getting the ole’ snip, just that they took off a much larger portion of his body than he had asked them to.

          There is no reason to amputate without the patient’s or a representive of the patient’s consent.

          • sruss13 says:

            @Lo-Pan: I didn’t throw out the rest. I took issue with one part.

            I completely agree that under no circumstances should a man’s penis be removed without his consent. Unequivocally.

        • Jon Mason says:

          @nerdychaz: That article is specific to AFRICA. Where most people do not have a hot shower everyday like Americans do. Yes, if you have bad personal hygiene the foreskin might be a focal point for it. If you have access to running water, keeping your foreskin clean is no more difficult than keeping your ears/feet clean, you just wash it.

          /Uncircumcized brit here living in US, and HATE the routine, un-needed child circumcisions that go on here.

      • doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

        @nerdychaz: Thanks for eliminating the need for breakfast.

      • MrEvil says:

        @nerdychaz: Y’know, the problem of “dick cheese” is easily solved by this new technology called BATHING YOURSELF!

        Anyone complaining of such a problem needs to spend a little extra time in the shower cleaning their junk.

    • Corporate_guy says:

      @Fly Girl: Sue? I can’t fathom this not being a criminal act. Especially considering the doctors did not have consent.

  11. Zyzzyva100 says:

    Yes, there is such a thing as cancer of the penis (usually carcinoma unless something somehow manages to metastasize there). Just like cervical cancer, it can also be caused by HPV (not sure what else causes it).

  12. What happened to the penis? How do we know it had cancer for sure? Goddamn I’d be demanding my severed penis so I could go get it checked out.

    Holy Christ, this story makes my clit hurt in sympathy.

    Again, where is the penis now?

  13. twritersf says:

    OK, i realize that the procedure on my was done when I was just minutes old, with no memory and, I would assume, no anesthesia of any sort, but I’m wondering: Since when does circumcision require general anesthesia? I thought it, just like the little snip-snip, was done with local, no wake up, patient conscious, and if something untoward was found, the immediate ability to consult. Something is missing from this story.

    • mythago says:

      @twritersf: No, nothing is missing from this story. Infant circumcision is not the same as circumcision on an adult male.

      • johnva says:

        @mythago: There’s still no way it would require general even on an adult male unless there is some complicating factor we’re not being told. AND it would be incredibly negligent to put someone under general without their consent and prepping them, etc.

    • johnva says:

      @twritersf: Agreed that something is missing from the story. I can’t imagine any doctor doing general anesthesia without consent. That would be a liability nightmare. Maybe it was really conscious sedation or something? Of course, we only have the plaintiff’s side on that point.

    • azntg says:

      @twritersf: Just because you don’t remember it doesn’t mean it doesn’t (didn’t, in your case) happen.

      As a cultural thing, I got my circumcision when I was in middle school. Yes, general anesthesia was used.

      My sympathies to the man. They really should’ve asked the man before treating the cancerous spot.

      Yes, having cancerous cells is not good in virtually all cases, but especially since it was at an particular important and sensitive spot (the main sex symbol for men and an important part of the excretory system), shouldn’t they have asked first?

    • JorgeM says:

      @twritersf:

      Circumcision is extremely painful whether done as an adult or newborn. Its just that newborns can’t fight back when they’re being strapped down and cut and feeling the whole thing.

  14. BelindaAutolycus says:

    Adult male circumcision is a rather common procedure. The #1 condition that prompts men to request it is phimosis, the inability to retract the foreskin. It can be painful, unsanitary, and prevent men from urinating freely.

    That being said, if there was a concern for penile carcinoma (rare in US, incredibly prevalent in other countries where newborn circumcision is uncommon) the surgeon should have obtained permission for “possible partial or total penectomy” along with the circumcision. Those 5 words would have avoided what is likely going to be a HUGE settlement. That guy is kicking himself over those 5 words right now.

    Long-time reader, 1st-time commenter. Being a urologist (“an” sounds so funny) finally came in handy!

    • JorgeM says:

      @BelindaAutolycus:

      According to American Cancer Society page on penile cancer, penile cancer is one of the most rare cancers in the world. They don’t recommend circumcision to prevent penile cancer. Instead, they simply recommend washing yourself while you shower.

      They also cited a study that showed that Denmark, which doesn’t circumcise, has very similar penile cancer rates to the United States which cuts.

      Penile cancer is just another scare tactic used to sell circumcisions to parents who haven’t bothered to research the topic.

      Phimosis is also a nonissue. There are simple stretching techniques that will resolve phimosis. Google the Beauge method. Of course, if you take proper care of a newborn (don’t retract), its doubtful that he’ll even have a problem.

  15. JN2 says:

    Worse Story Ever!

    “I have a PhDuh in medicine, would you like an Oopsectomy?”

  16. padams89 says:

    The informed consent that all patients sign before undergoing a procedure with general anesthesia includes multiple clauses that most people don’t take the time to read. the most notable two are:
    1. you authorize your (surgeon) to authorize any other licensed healthcare providers (meaning trained and licensed) he deems fit to either participate in or take over your care, even mid-procedure as long as their role is within their scope of practice.
    2. you authorize your physician to make decisions to perform or order to be performed any additional procedures and/or testing he deems medically necessary without obtaining consent if you are in a state where consent cannot be obtained (general anesthesia).

    these are the facts of the releases the patients sign. I am by no means defending the doctor or blaming the patient because there are significant details the are missing that would be needed for blame to be applied either way.

    • johnva says:

      @padams89: Yes, and I’m sure that the purpose of that kind of disclaimer is so that the doctors are allowed to handle and kind of emergency situation that comes up while you’re under. That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense to me is that, even if he really did authorize general anesthesia (and apparently he claims he did not), cancer would not be an emergency where they had to make a decision before waking him up to inform him. So the whole story doesn’t add up.

    • johnnya2 says:

      @padams89: The doctor better be able to prove it was “medically necessary”.

    • chenry says:

      @padams89: That’s meant to give the doctor consent to do things like save your life when things go wonky. Like whoops your heart stopped, better do something drastic to get it going again.

      There is no way that chopping of this guys tubesteak is anywhere near medically necessary.

    • BrandonAbell says:

      @padams89: Learn some basic contract law (that goes for everyone on this site). An unconscionable clause in a contract, and I think that one would have little difficulty convincing a judge or jury that unauthorized penis removal is unconscionable, can be ruled invalid in court. Also, adhesive contracts (“take it or leave it” types like release forms) are harder to enforce than negotiated ones.

  17. laserjobs says:

    In other news “Surgeon claims to have worlds largest Penis”

  18. redkamel says:

    Ive benn in the OR a few times. IME: You dont cut stuff unless you have to. I cannot think of any conceivable reason to remove a penis immediately. Even if you mess up the circumcision, which is hard to do. A circumcision is relatively noninvasive…they could have woken him up and taken him back to the OR same day if needed.

  19. Julia789 says:

    If the cancer was that advanced, would 12 hours have made a difference in treatment? They could have woken him up, explained the scary situation, gotten consent, and put him back under in the morning, or even sooner.

  20. Wow

    You’d think that if he was in imminent DANGER from the cancer in his Penis his wife might have noticed something like … “OWE! Hey your junk just BIT ME!”

    ok ok bad.

    With the details I have I have to side with the “consumer” here. As mentioned above men choose to go through a voluntary circumcision for many reasons. Those are not at issue.

    What is at issue is whether this procedure was reasonable given the circumstances. I’m sorry, but IMO Amputation of ANY body part should not be undertaken unless there is an immediate threat to the patients life (e.g. Arm caught in a combine/jaws-of-life for 5 minutes!). If I went in for an ingrown tonail in my big toe (been there) and they put me out (without my consent), and I woke up without a big I’d be hopping mad (but not actually hopping)!

  21. fisherstudios says:

    amputation: the removal of part of a body extremity by surgery

    circumcision: the removal of part of a body extremity by surgery

    ???

    • Gopher bond says:

      @fisherstudios: Do you amputate your finger nails? Do you go to the barber every three months for a “hair amputation”?

      Though I do admit to amputating some turds once in a while.

  22. nerdychaz says:

    OMG, I work at a medical college and I asked around. No one would just cut off someone’s penis in an “emergency decision.” Cancer does not spread like fire. The guy was not going to die in the time it takes to sew him up and ask him consent. They could have had consent from the family as well.

  23. ninabi says:

    If the cancer was advanced, surgery is the only option. Unless the man wanted to die of penile cancer.

    Yes, he could have been awakened to be informed of his condition, but there are also medical bills to consider- the cost of a second surgery,etc.

    I’m surprised the man himself didn’t see anything amiss.

  24. 17-A says:

    I have a question. I don’t really want to ask it, but my curiousity is overpowering: did they just leave his balls hanging there, or what?

    Because personally, if my surgeon had removed the whole package, I somehow feel like that’d be easier for me to deal with. But for me to wake up from surgery to find nothing but a pair of testicles down there? That’s f***ing weird!

  25. tator says:

    Why is this done with general anesthesia rather than a local. That just don’t make sense.

    • SybilDisobedience says:

      @tator: I think, in cases of surgery that could be particularly distressing or anxiety-inducing in a patient, general anesthesia is used instead of a local to keep the patient calm and stable. I had a minorly invasive surgery a while back that was more about looking at my insides with a scope than actually hacking me open to remove anything, but I was put all the way under, because they didn’t know how long it would take and didn’t want me getting anxious or restless.

      • DoubleEcho says:

        @SybilDisobedience: But remember, according to the article he didn’t consent to general anesthesia. I’m starting to think that the doctor may have confused “circumsision” with “amputation” before the surgery and then made up the cancer claim.

  26. TheFlamingoKing says:

    we’ve just made a new note to self: if we ever have surgery, we intend to grab the doctor by the collar and say vigorously to him, “No matter what happens, don’t you cut off my penis.”

    That’s probably the funniest thing I’ve ever seen on Consumerist. Well done.

  27. onesong says:

    that was disgusting, yet informative. thank you. i think.

  28. craftypants says:

    @padams89:

    I think that is so that if your heart stops they have permission to start it again without going in search of next of kin for consent.

    I am no medic but surely they cannot be sure of cancer (and to cut off…that….you better be 1000% sure) without lab reports, surely they could have taken a tiny sample of the mass, sent it to the lab for examination and then spoken to the patient when they are awake.

    • DallasPath says:

      @craftypants:

      Actually they can get an answer during surgery…it is called a frozen section. A pathologist will take a piece of the tissue, freeze it, stain it, and look at it under the microscope. Frozen sections are a very common thing, especially in cancer cases.

      I’ve never heard of a circumcision being sent for frozen section though and without pathology they could not determine whether or not it was really cancer.

      This whole case sounds very very bizarre…from the general anesthetic to the amputation. Reading the article didn’t tell me much more.

  29. Islandkiwi says:

    This would only have been okay if he woke up and they’d thrown in free boobs.

  30. craftypants says:

    @ninabi:
    Financial decisions are not the surgeon’s decision to make

  31. craftypants says:

    @craftypants:
    sorry, that was meant to be a reply to someone elses comment, I used the wrong text box

  32. BerwinPhaethon says:

    If this cancer was so (I’m assuming) big and noticeable and obviously needed to be removed immediately or ELSE, why didn’t a doctor or the patient notice it before? Surely if a circumcision was being planned the doctor would have done an exam on the area to be operated on before surgery.

    There’s just so much that doesn’t make sense.

  33. zolielo says:

    Hopefully no arbitration and this can go to trial.

  34. kbrook says:

    I agree with my Hubby: You don’t cut off someone’s willly without permission!

  35. MyPetFly says:

    Clearly a case of penis envy. And hopefully the doctor will end up as a ward of the “penal system.”

  36. kimdog says:

    Okay… so where is the pathology report? Because when a surgeon removes cancerous tissue, you don’t just throw it in the trash… it goes to a lab for a thorough work up. So you know what type of cancer, how much, etc. This is a transparent case of someone who fucked up and is trying (poorly) to CYA.

  37. Inglix_the_Mad says:

    When an idiot nearly punched my ticket last year, my leg was busted up pretty bad. The Doc came in and said he had to do surgery and I made one thing explicitly clear:

    “You don’t cut ANYTHING off without MY permission.” I had 5 witnesses (one of whom was my boss) and made that abundantly clear. I told my wife my wishes as well.

    Unlike many people, I’m not afraid of doctors.

    • AmbroseP says:

      @Inglix_the_Mad:
      More power to you. NO ONE should feel intimidated/afraid by/of their doctor(s).

      Interesting that I should read about this now. I’m covering some related stuff in a current health law class, and from the little information available from the article, it looks like this doctor/practice is screwed.

  38. ionerox says:

    Cripes, you think the doctors would at least talked to the wife about it.

    A friend of my mom’s was having surgery to remove a small melanoma on her face… which turned out to be a giant tumor that had spread halfway across her nose and cheek. When they discovered this, they stopped surgery and talked to her husband about it and let him decide how to proceed. This is why you designate a person to act on your behalf when you’re under sedation.

    You’d think that there’s some sort of informed consent law. The guy might have been able to figure out what his options where (instead of just loosing his junk), and had time to prepare for it.

  39. MasterThief says:

    Technically, if a surgeon performing an elective operation doesn’t get consent to cut something off, it’s assault, and they can expect to get sued for it.

    /Yay, Torts class is actually useful!

    • AmbroseP says:

      @MasterThief:
      Assault? Not so sure.
      Battery? Maybe.
      Negligence? For sure.

    • RocktheDebit says:

      @AmbroseP: @MasterThief: Yeah, the assault and battery torts will really depend on the exact wording of the consent forms – if the physician’s allowed to do “necessary or advisable” treatments or only necessary treatments. Of course, with “necessary or advisable” you may be able to get expert witnesses to testify that amputating a man’s penis was neither necessary nor advisable in that instance in order to establish an assault tort.

      Class tomorrow is going to be awesome.

  40. pwillow1 says:

    A previous commenter said something about surgical consent forms giving the doctor permission to treat conditions found during the operation, and indeed most forms do include something like that. For example, suppose you signed a consent form to have your appendix taken out, and once you were under anesthesia, what they found was that the intestine had ruptured and bowel contents was spilling into the abdomen? The surgical form you, the patient, signed would give the surgeon permission to surgically treat the rupture without waiting for you to wake up to get an additional consent. This might necessitate removing a section of the intestine as well as the appendix, but that is why they include statements like that in surgical consent forms. Not every surgical finding is apparent or predictable before surgery (and indeed, sometimes there are misadventures during surgery that necessitate surgical correction.)

    Having said that… I simply cannot conceive of a situation where a surgeon in his right mind would have a patient consent for a circumcision and only a circumcision, and then go ahead and remove the penis. Even if during the surgery the doctors became convinced that this patient had cancer, how about first TAKING A BIOPSY and finding out what that shows? Like others have pointed out, this was not an emergent situation. The patient’s penis had a lesion; it wasn’t on fire.

    Part of the duties of the OR staff is to make sure that the surgeons don’t operate beyond the scope of the consent that the patient has given. In this particular case, it may have been reasonable for the surgeons to biopsy any suspicious area or lesion (debatable), but complete amputation of the penis is wildly beyond the scope of consent that was obtained.

    Oh, and for someone else who asked about anesthesia, yes, general anesthesia is often used for circumcisions. It’s really up to the patient and the doctor. You can do these under local when the patient is an adult, but honestly, some patients just want to be out.

  41. cmdrsass says:

    The only consolation in all of this will be if he is allowed to take it home and keep it in a jar on the mantle. You could win a lot of bar bets with that one!

  42. catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

    i have to wonder how he didn’t know he was getting general anesthesia though, i can’t tell from the article. having been in a hospital before, every time a nurse came in to put a new bag of anything on my IV i made sure to ask what it was and to see if it looked different from the one before it.

    i have a lot of allergies, including mangoes. and the hospital kitchen once sent up my lunch tray, WITH the allergy list next to the plate clearly stating my mango allergy, under a fruit cup full of mango slices.
    how could i trust them to read the medication allergy armband before hooking me up to a new bag? i know nurses and kitchen staff are trained differently, but i am still going to check every time.

    and if it was an inhaled anesthesia, rather than IV sedation, wouldn’t you stop and ask why the gas mask is being put over your mouth?

    • aka Cat says:

      @catastrophegirl: I’ve had outpatient surgery a couple times, where I got a local plus some sort of sedative so that I wouldn’t freak out. They could have brought in Freddy Krueger and told me he was going to start chopping off my body parts, and all I would have done is giggled.

      For all I know, Freddy was the surgeon. I remember less than two minutes from each procedure.

      • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

        @CatMoran: i’ve never had either a sedative or general anesthesia, so i appreciate the explanation. i would have no idea what my reactions would be.

        i certainly hope that poor man wasn’t giggling during his surgery… but that would explain a possible ACCCIDENTAL amputation…

  43. forgottenpassword says:

    Ah doctors & their god complexes!

    “We’ve just made a new note to self: if we ever have surgery, we intend to grab the doctor by the collar and say vigorously to him, “No matter what happens, don’t you cut off my penis.” Who knew you had to worry about that sort of thing.”

    Reminds me of the practice of patients marking on their body with a black sharpie pointing out exactly what kind of surgery or which part the doctor should be operating on. Like if your left knee is to be operated on… you write something like “THIS knee is the bad one…. operate on THIS one”. I guess you can write on your pecker not to EVER cut it completely off if you go in for a circumcision.

    • AmbroseP says:

      @forgottenpassword:
      Patients do this now? I know many hospitals do surgical consults pre-op, talk with the patient and then proceed to mark whatever limb needing tending with a giant X.

    • nsv says:

      @forgottenpassword:

      “I guess you can write on your pecker not to EVER cut it completely off if you go in for a circumcision.”

      Some people can write all that. Some folks have to abbreviate.

      Some poor bastards just have to write “NO”.

  44. GirlCat says:

    This story sounds like bullshit. Did the cancer have a gun pointed at the guy’s head? Has a surgeon ever cut off a woman’s boob under similar circumstances? Who would cut off someone’s johnson without further review? Is there any pinot grigio left??

    • RocktheDebit says:

      @GirlCat: Oddly enough, there was a case not too long ago in Kentucky about cutting out a (56-year-old) woman’s obviously diseased ovaries and uterus during an appendectomy and how the patient signed the consent form, but said that she didn’t want any of her “woman parts” removed.

      And then there’s “Anti-Circumcision Guy” who protested at University of Chicago Hospitals when I was there. The story was that as a kid they’d botched his circumcision. I hope he shows up to give expert testimony at this trial.

    • Consumerist-Moderator-Roz says:

      @GirlCat: We don’t like to blame the victim here. If you’re going to say a story is bullshit, you’re going to need some evidence or some pertinent information, not just a gut feeling.

  45. dahlink_natasha says:

    I would be interested to know what the other people in the room witnessed as the surgery was taking place. There’s no way it was just the doctor and the patient–got to be at least a nurse or two, someone to put the patient under, a technician to hand him sterile instruments…they were witnesses.

  46. How can this be even possible?! Couldnt they have asked before cutting it off?! Im deffinetly sayin: “No matter what happens, don’t you cut off my penis.” before any surgery even if it has notting to do with my penis.

  47. nacoran says:

    I’d want my severed penis sent to another hospital for evaluation. This sounds like they are covering a botched surgery.

  48. MikeH30 says:

    he went to get mutilated and got more mutilated then he expected, circumcision is a great human right tragedy as it is

  49. sbelyea says:

    We actually just covered a similar case in my business law class Wednesday (we’re still covering the basics of criminal & civil law). In that case, a woman went in for a biopsy and ended up with a double mastectomy. In that case, the plaintiff won because the defendant argued that there was implied consent.

    I’m not sure what the exact law is in the state regarding this, but it is possible to argue (by the defense) that there the extra surgery was done because of an emergency medical need (for which consent is implied). Because general anesthesia could be seen as a life threatening operation, there is the possibility that this case could result in the doctors escaping the charges. Whether or not that’s the right thing is up in the air depending on your view of the law (although I would argue that the doctors were clearly overstepping their authority).

  50. MikeH30 says:

    I am betting that they messed up and botched the circumcision (which is bad enough if done properly) but then tried to avoid a huge lawsuit by claiming cancer.

    a doctor willing to do circumcisions on infants has already lost all sense of the hippocratic oath and ethics so it’s not a stretch to find them hurting a patient to keep their malpractice down

  51. SudhiraKangaroo says:

    I worked for five years in a pathology lab for a regional medical center, and this was pretty much the standard protocol: If the surgeon found cancer, the most invasive ethical procedure would be a quick biopsy and a stat call to the pathology lab, which would have made a diagnosis. If any sort of cancer was found, the patient should have been sewn back up, circumcised or not, allowed to awaken from anesthesia, and been allowed to make an informed decision.

    If cancer was found, where are the pathology reports?

  52. deleted01 says:

    No joke, I was let the cancer kill me before I removed my penis.

  53. Trai_Dep says:

    On the bright side, the dude is going to save a bloody fortune from no longer having to buy condoms.
    Oh. Wait. Was “bloody” the wrong adjective to use?

  54. Trai_Dep says:

    I’m genuinely shocked – shocked! – that someone hasn’t already:

  55. XCha0s says:

    okay, nobody has the right to cut your penis off without your consent. even if he did have cancer and couldn’t live without it, he has to first see that cancer, and make the choice to have it cut off. you cannot have that decision made for you. i hope he wins in court, that would be justice.

  56. NarutoSoul says:

    On top of financial damages, I think we should bring up some old school punishment… CHOP OFF THE SURGEONS’ WANGS!

  57. 3eyes says:

    Wouldn’t cancer in the penis be kinda good? I mean it would make it bigger and such.

    Also, maybe this will finally answer the question of how much money would it take to cut off your penis.

  58. rshettle says:

    I choose death before dishonor. I want my cancerous junk to be 6′ under with me…

  59. SerleBabarong says:

    Actually, this sort of thing happens often, just not usually with the penis. It’s quite common for surgeons to set about doing one procedure, but to do another one once they see the spread of a tumor or something else life-threatening (or simply something that makes sense for them to do). For example, during exploratory surgery, appendectomies are often carried out.

  60. BoomerFive says:

    Inexcusable. A few hours wait would have made no difference, I am betting that there is something else going on here and someone is covering their asses.

  61. dahlberg123 says:

    C’mon people, not everyone is hung like a horse; maybe the circumcision and the penis amputation where one in the same?

  62. HaHaRich says:

    According to past comments, the only medical reason you would need a circumcision for is if the penis could not extend past the forskin–imagine a kid who fell asleep inside a sleeping bag with no zipper, grew up, and couldn’t get out of the bag any more. The doc wouldn’t be able to see the kids feet to tell he had frostbite untill he cut the bag open.

    Intelligent Design = Fail because the foreskin has no zipper.

  63. OnceWasCool says:

    If he has been married longer than 10 years he don’t need it anymore.

  64. ShreemayiCabaret says:

    While general anesthesia isn’t required, and you only need a local, I would want the general anesthesia. I just can’t imagine being awake watching someone cut ANYTHING off my penis, foreskin or not.

  65. YervantNoppa says:

    “penile carcinoma (rare in US, incredibly prevalent in other countries where newborn circumcision is uncommon)”

    Not true. The totally unnecessary practice of newborn circumcision is rare in Europe, but Europe has similar penile cancer rates to the US.

    I’m surprised that,. as a urologist, you would be so poorly informed.

  66. usmcmoran says:

    hmmm detachable penis

  67. thesuperpet says:

    They didnt even need to wake him up if his wife was nearby, thats what next of kins are for. “Hey we found canser if your husband’s penis and if we dont take it off, he’ll die, sign here please”

    She signs, no big deal.

  68. FangDoc says:

    My guess is that the surgeon will turn out to have drug problems. Or a previously diagnosed mental disorder. Or both.

    What I immediately thought of was the case in NYC many years back where the obstetrician carved his initials into the patient’s belly after delivering her baby via caesarian:
    [query.nytimes.com]

    “The state also cited the clinic for not thoroughly checking Dr. Zarkin’s credentials and for allowing him to perform surgery unsupervised even though a psychiatrist had told clinic officials that Dr. Zarkin had a brain disorder.”

  69. If they gave me the choice “your penis or you die” I will choose DEATH!

  70. XuxaVetus says:

    Basically, they DIDN’T have the right. It was a poor medical decision on the doctor’s part, and will have financial consequences for the doctor and the hospital. Not to mention the life-changing consequences for the poor patient. (Yes, I am male and yes, I am *extremely* sympathetic!)

  71. ManiacDan says:

    Actually, my mother had a doctor forcibly remove her ovaries when she went in complaining about stomach cramps.

    Her abdomen was scanned by a nurse, who immediately ran out to get a doctor. The doctor came in, took one look at the machine and said “we’ll have to operate!”

    My mother said “ok, let me go get my planner so I can see when I’ll be free-”

    “No, lay back, we’re going to operate” the doctor said, and stuck a mask over her face.

    One of her ovaries ruptured on the operating table, if she had gone home she would have died.

    Without knowledge of exactly what was happening inside this man’s penis, we can’t really say if the doctor made the right decision. There could have been a large cancerous mass about to intrude onto a large vein (which there are plenty in the penis) and if they hadn’t removed it, the cells could have entered his blood stream and gone straight to the heart, brain, and lungs.

    As much as I hate the bills I get, I like to remember that doctors are in the business of saving lives, not performing service tasks.

    • nsv says:

      @ManiacDan:

      There could have been a large cancerous mass about to intrude onto a large vein (which there are plenty in the penis) and if they hadn’t removed it, the cells could have entered his blood stream and gone straight to the heart, brain, and lungs.

      If this is true, I’m guessing that there would have been a detectable lump that would have been noticed hopefully by the patient or his wife, or by the doctor during a pre-op exam. There aren’t many places to hide in the penis.

      And if this is true, it should be a simple matter to produce the penis and the cancerous mass. It doesn’t just go into the trash can. The doctor should easily be able to show what the problem was and why he thought it was life-threatening.

      If it wasn’t life-threatening, then at a minimum the patient’s wife should have been informed and allowed to make a decision.

      The importance of a penis (both as a functioning organ and to the patient’s mental health) is not a mystery. Even I know that, and I don’t have one. It’s not like the doctor just cut off a finger, but it’s ok, you have nine more.

      Doctors are in the business of saving lives. They are also human beings and they make mistakes. If this doctor made a mistake in this case, it’s a whopper and at a minimum the patient deserves compensation, medical care, and a whole lot of mental health care. If the doctor didn’t make a mistake, the patient needs to understand why it was necessary.

      • ManiacDan says:

        @nsv: Completely agreed, if the doctor removed the penis because there was a little lump that maybe could have been cancer, he should never practice medicine again. I’m just trying to argue against the people who are so quick to assume that’s what happened. While it’s true the article makes no reference to the post-severed penis, we don’t know what happened to it so we can’t assume the cancer wasn’t about to kill him.

        Though, I’ll admit, “deadly penis cancer” isn’t exactly top of the list of probabilities.

  72. MadgeSquirrel says:

    I’m having thoughts similar to ManiacDan on this one. What I’m thinking is the docs did the circumcision and found the cancer had been cut during the operation and putting things into a state where it was safe would have risked spreading the tumor.

    The doctor isn’t going to want to stitch the tumor itself and they are not going to want to leave an area with no skin on it.

  73. chumleyex says:

    That’s some messed up junk.

  74. picardia says:

    That cancer was not going to kill him in one day. Absolutely they should have waited to discuss it with him. He might ultimately have decided it really was medically necessary, but that was so obviously his decision to make.

    Sometimes doctors do have to make emergency decisions, but I can’t see this being one of them.

  75. bbagdan says:

    Dang, I guess I shouldn’t have tattooed a big black X on my penis.

  76. MelanieHyena says:

    There have actually been studies that show that circumcision helps prevent the contraction of HIV/AIDS.

    • Gesualdo says:

      @MelanieHyena:
      Those studies involve people having unprotected sex in Africa. A foreskin is no substitute for a condom.

      Furthermore, using studies like that to validate/encourage ritualized genital mutilation (ie, circumcision) is just as absurd as the original reasons used to promote circumcision in America, which was that it was thought to reduce/stop masturbation.

  77. Yurei says:

    is this poor guy going to have to pee through a tube now for the rest of his life? Hopefully they can make him some sort of prosthetic that’s at least going to help with his mental stability even if it isn’t functional. I don’t know why we haven’t managed to grow peni yet, since we can grow ears on rats and such already.

    Most men I know would rather die by cancer then lop that particular thing off, I know i’d feel the same if I had one. It sounds like someone made a big “Whoops” somewhere. Now this guy gets to live a life of strap ons. Eesh. There was no way to reattach it I wonder? There was a local story some years back about a woman who vindictively cut off her husband’s junk and i think they reattached it after fishing it out of the toilet or some stupid arsed thing.

    • nsv says:

      @Yurei: Some amputated tissue can be reattached within a small window of time. Even assuming there’s nothing wrong with the penis, it’s still too late.

  78. I speak Jive. says:

    The #1 problem with penile cancer is delay in diagnosis. Most men are horrible about going to the doctor anyway, but faced with a problem with Mr. Happy, they frequently visit a river in Egypt called De-Nial.

    I’ve had instances where I couldn’t adequately examine a patient’s penis because of bad phimosis. In those cases I’ve held involved discussions with the patient about performing a circumcision (sometimes under general anesthesia) with the possibility of removing part, or all of the penis if it looks like cancer. Sometimes the patient agrees to everything, sometimes they say “circumcision only.”

    Point is, the doc should have gotten better Informed Consent. In its absence, he/she (there are female urologists, you chauvinist pigs!) should have come back to fight another day.

    As far as urinating afterward, it depends on how much of the penis was amputated. If it was a partial then it may look, and function, not unlike an intact penis. If a total penectomy was performed, the urethra (tube running though penis) is brought out through an opening in the perineum (taint) and the man would have to pee sitting down.

  79. myfigurefemale says:

    Up until recently, many women went in to the hospital to get a biopsy and came out with double mastectomy…as a STANDARD practice. If any evidence of cancer was found at all, the women received a mastectomy.

    Obviously I’m not saying that this man should have had his penis removed – clearly the doctor should have gotten consent from his wife at the very least. However, as a feminist, I think it’s important to point out that this man is coming from a point of privilege where he will be awarded a lot of money for this doctor’s mistake. Meanwhile, many women (who would now be in their 70s or 80s) were never compensated, apologized to, and had to live with the results for the rest of their lives. Doctors told them to be happy they were alive and not to worry about the scars, or their appearance. See a picture of scars here: [www.myselftogetheragain.org]

    For example, read this woman’s story:
    [www.livestrong.org]

    And a nurse’s perspective.

    “As a nurse, I learned that it was common practice in the late 60s and early 70s for a woman to go into surgery for the assessment of a breast lump not knowing whether or not her breast was still there when she awakened. During these years a survivor was asked to sign a consent form that stated if the biopsy was positive for cancer, the survivor may have a mastectomy.”
    [www.cancerfacts.com]

    • orlo says:

      @myfigurefemale:

      Back in the day doctors did all sorts of crap like lobotomies, electroshock therapy, blood-letting, etc. This is not a feminist issue, since today a woman given a surprise mastectomy would likewise be able to sue. And then she would get a nice pair of artificial breasts, while this guy is in for much suffering.

      And yeah, unless you’re cool with your husband cutting off your breasts–with a spoon–please don’t decide to cut of his penis if he is incapacitated. Don’t be that kind of feminist.

      • verdantpine says:

        @orlo: Yes, in the earlier case it looks like that poor woman who went in for a C-section and had all limbs removed was able to sue.

        I don’t think that he’s coming from privilege just because he’s a man. He’s lost something that, in our society, is held up as sacrosanct to his masculinity – just as breasts and ovaries are considered central to femininity. I think that’s one of the things feminism is about (at least it was for me) – that we’re not to be objectified by our bodies. But we all know men’s physical objectification is usually tied to their genitals.

        And please, don’t even consider Lorena Bobbitt as a feminist – that’s just a stereotype. Folks like her and Valerie Solanas are more properly “misandrists”.

  80. chartrule says:

    sounds like a cover up for a mistake

  81. mariospants says:

    Thankfully this story wasn’t submitted by the OP as personal experience complete with “and now they won’t answer my phone calls”.

    What good is life without your sex organ, anyway?

  82. SAGA says:

    You know the guy’s wife slipped the doc a 100

  83. Demonbird says:

    They cut off his penis… My god this man deserves everything they can give him in compensation and to have the doctors penises removed.
    How did they know it was a malignant cancer by eyeballing it?

  84. …if we ever have surgery, we intend to grab the doctor by the collar and say vigorously to him, “No matter what happens, don’t you cut off my penis.”

    I’ll have to say that exact thing to my doctor when I go in for laser eye surgery.

  85. TheolaLamia says:

    I’m assuming he was getting a circumcision due to cancer having something to do with his foreskin.

    Otherwise I would agree with you. I’m not circumcised and don’t see a good reason for it other than medical complications.

  86. Jordan Lund says:

    Here’s what I don’t get… how is it that nobody knew he had cancer before he got on the operating table?

    I’m not a surgeon, but I would expect before any operation there would be this thing called “an exam”? Shouldn’t that have turned up any abnormality severe enough to require amputation?

  87. kalmakazee says:

    This reminds me of the David Reimer story! It’s such a sad story. :-(

  88. Onouris says:

    Surely the best thing to do if they found this was wake the guy, talk to him, get a decision, THEN go cutting up his meat and two veg. I doubt a day would have made a huge difference.

    Holy crap you don’t go cutting that off people that’s just not cricket.

  89. Consumerist-Moderator-Roz says:

    Just a reminder folks. This is not a circumcision debate thread. Keep your comments on topic and relevant to the original article.

    Off topic comments may garner you a warning or worse.

  90. XJSGUY says:

    This is not your daddy’s skins game.

  91. Yoooder says:

    Ahh Kentucky! I moved here a couple years ago and have to admit I enjoy a lot of the odd happenings of the area. It’s a state that is known for bourbon and yet 50% of the counties are dry. In my county (Hardin) you actually have to drink and drive, since the only place you can buy booze is in a restaurant or winery. Every major road that leads to the next county has a liquor store right at the county line, always with a constant stream of people going to and fro.

    It’s also a state that takes the “we don’t need no driver’s training” approach, and as a result has people that stop at random, run through stops, yield to yellow or red cars, think that the middle and left lanes of I-65 are their god-given place, and that the turn signal is the mark of the beast.

    When I hear anti-democratic opinions down here, 80% of them are because “Obama is the antichrist” rather than any worldly reasons.

    Finally, Kentucky is not “Southern”. It was barely touched by the conferderates, is in the middle of the country, and generally fits in more as a midwest state. However, just try explaining that to people down here. The best logic I’ve found to support that Kentucky is Southern is that they serve sweet tea almost everywhere.

    That said, people are generally nice. The weather is pleasant, there’s lots of country side (with only 4 real cities in the state–Louisville, Lexington, Bowling Green, and Paducah), and the land can be gorgeous.

    Come to visit, but I don’t know if you’d really want to stay.

  92. BiZarRroBALlmeR says:

    I’m an organ donor so if he’s lucky I’ll croak soon and he can have my junk. Maybe HE can put it to good use. whakawhaka

  93. PhilanderMedusa says:

    Sorry, should have said “some” other countries. But the fact of the matter is penile cancer accounts for only abuot 0.5% of all cancers in men in the US. In some Asian. African, and South American countries it represents 10%. That’s a 20X increase in prevalence. In medical terms, like that show from the 80s, “That’s incredible!”

    See, I’m not as poorly informed as you thought ;-

  94. banmojo says:

    Hmmm, mixed feelings here. Several things to say: 1. Penile carcinoma is a squamous cell carcinoma, is often very aggressive, and does carry a high mortality rate especially when it’s not appropriately treated when discovered. 2. Penile carcinoma almost only occurs in NON circumsized men, which makes a very GOOD case for circumcision imo. 3. The argument could be made that the surgeons, acting as patient advocate, had his best interests in heart when they cut out his deadly cancer (and rest assured the tissue was sent to the pathologist so the cancer can be verified I’m sure). 4. Another argument could (and I’m certain WILL) be made that it wouldn’t have taken but 10-20 extra minutes of time to wake up the patient, inform him of the discovery, then get his permission to proceed, thus avoiding the whole malpractice thing.

    However, in the end, with a positive pathology report, the case is not likely to win, no matter how horrific you may think it is to have your johnson cut off. Just imagine how much MORE horrific to watch it ROT off from cancer, which then spreads to your entire body, from whence you emaciate, rot, THEN die.

    Hmmmm, interesting, and tough, case.