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)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam malesuada commodo erat et molestie. Duis pellentesque aliquam bibendum. Suspendisse venenatis lobortis eleifend. Mauris id est sed lectus convallis aliquam.
Post a comment
Comments:
I wonder if the surgeon's last name was Bobbitt...
OMG! How do you not wake the guy up first and ask him if it is ok to cut off his junk? WOW!
they should get to amputate his penis now, sans permission.
I went in to get my hair cut, and they ended up with a frontal lobotomy. This kind of stuff happens!
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?
Well, circumcision, penisectomy... they sound so similar.
I'm not blaming the victim here, but I am curious. Why get a circumcision anyway?
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.
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.
@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."
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).
@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.
@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.
@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.
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?
@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.
@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.
@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.
@alphafemale: Yeah. There's gotta be a way for someone to do lab tests on what they severed to confirm the diagnosis. If he got rid of the "evidence" then that's got to set off all kinds of legal alarm bells.
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.
@Zyzzyva100: "The lawsuit also claims the plaintiff did not consent to general anesthesia." reading the article sometimes yields answers.
@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.
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!
@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.
Worse Story Ever!
"I have a PhDuh in medicine, would you like an Oopsectomy?"
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).
@twritersf: No, nothing is missing from this story. Infant circumcision is not the same as circumcision on an adult male.
@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.
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.
@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.
In other news "Surgeon claims to have worlds largest Penis"
@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.
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.
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.
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)!
amputation: the removal of part of a body extremity by surgery
circumcision: the removal of part of a body extremity by surgery
???
@MayorBee is getting what plants crave: First name Wong, Dr. Wong Wang...I believe he has a taxi driver brother named Wong Wei.
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.
@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?
@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.
@johnva: the article notes that in his lawsuit, the man says he did not agree to general anesthesia.
Holy eff. How could they have the lawful right to make that decision?