Go in for a circumcision, leave without a penis

Started by HVC, August 18, 2011, 08:56:43 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1 2
User actions

HVC

August 18, 2011, 08:56:43 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44178165/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
QuoteSHELBYVILLE, Ky. — The dispute between a Kentucky man and a surgeon over the necessity of amputating the patient's penis during surgery in 2008 is set to go to trial this week.

The doctor maintains he found cancer in the man's penis during surgery and that it had to be removed, according to the physician's attorney. The patient claims the surgery was supposed to be a circumcision and he never authorized the amputation, nor was he given a chance to seek a second opinion.

Jury selection begins Thursday in the lawsuit brought by Phillip Seaton of Waddy and his wife, Deborah, against Dr. John Patterson of Louisville. Attorneys hope to start opening statements that afternoon.

The Seatons sued Patterson in Shelby County Circuit Court in 2008 after an operation that resulted in the amputation.

Seaton, now in his 60s, was having the procedure on Oct. 19, 2007, to better treat inflammation.

Neither Kevin George, the attorney for the Seatons, nor Clay Robinson, the attorney for Patterson, would comment on the case. George said Shelby Circuit Judge Charles Hickman asked the lawyers to refrain from making public statements. Robinson did not respond to phone and email messages left at his office in recent weeks.

The lawsuit alleges Patterson removed Seaton's penis without consulting either Phillip or Deborah Seaton.

George said during a pre-trial hearing on Aug. 2 that the case comes down to whether jurors believe the amputation "was a necessary part of the surgery.'

"This is really a fact-driven case," Shelby Circuit Judge Charles Hickman said during the pre-trial conference.

George has said that the doctor's post-surgical notes show Patterson thought he detected cancer and removed the penis. But, George added, the situation was not an emergency.

"It didn't have to happen that way," George said in 2008, shortly after the lawsuit was filed.

Robinson has previously said that Patterson, a Kentucky-based urologist, had permission to perform any medical procedure deemed necessary and that the doctor found cancer in the organ during the surgery. Robinson has said that Patterson "had no reasonable option" but to remove the cancer.

"Mr. Seaton's problem was not the surgery, it was the cancer," Robinson said in 2008.

The trial had initially been set for January, but Hickman delayed the proceedings because of pre-trial publicity.

"I'm optimistic we can seat this jury," Robinson said during the pre-trial hearing.

The Seatons are seeking unspecified damages from Patterson for "loss of service, love and affection."

The Seatons also sued Jewish Hospital, where the surgery took place. The hospital settled with the Seatons for an undisclosed amount.

The Seatons' suit is similar to one in which an Indianapolis man was awarded more than $2.3 million in damages after he claimed his penis and left testicle were removed without his consent during surgery for an infection in 1997.

Takes a lot of balls to cut off another mans dick.
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

Palisadoes

#1
August 18, 2011, 09:05:55 AM
Poor guy. Why wouldn't the surgeon just circumcise the penis and then consult about the cancer afterwards? It's a much less risky thing to do, and at least allows the patient to consent.

11B4V

#2
August 18, 2011, 09:06:30 AM
I hope he gives that doctor the shaft
"there's a long tradition of insulting people we disagree with here, and I'll be damned if I listen to your entreaties otherwise."-OVB

"Obviously not a Berkut-commanded armored column.  They're not all brewing."- CdM

"We've reached one of our phase lines after the firefight and it smells bad—meaning it's a little bit suspicious... Could be an amb—".

dps

#3
August 18, 2011, 09:14:10 AM
Quote from: Palisadoes on August 18, 2011, 09:05:55 AM
Poor guy. Why wouldn't the surgeon just circumcise the penis and then consult about the cancer afterwards? It's a much less risky thing to do, and at least allows the patient to consent.

Well, I think that's kind of the point of the suit--that's what the patient is saying the doctor should have done.  It's not like the guy was having a leg amputated because of gangrene, and the plan had been to amputate below the knee, but during the procedure the doctor decided that medically it was best to amputate above the knee instead.

What I also don't get is why the patient was under general anesthesia instead of a local for a circumcision.  Well, I'm making an assumption there, but certainly if they were using a local, the doctor could have talked to the patient right then about it.

garbon

#5
August 18, 2011, 01:09:44 PM
Quote from: dps on August 18, 2011, 09:14:10 AM
What I also don't get is why the patient was under general anesthesia instead of a local for a circumcision.  Well, I'm making an assumption there, but certainly if they were using a local, the doctor could have talked to the patient right then about it.

I had general.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

grumbler

#6
August 18, 2011, 01:57:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2011, 01:09:44 PM
Quote from: dps on August 18, 2011, 09:14:10 AM
What I also don't get is why the patient was under general anesthesia instead of a local for a circumcision.  Well, I'm making an assumption there, but certainly if they were using a local, the doctor could have talked to the patient right then about it.

I had general.
That was because you wouldn't stop moving under local, and they couldn't deploy the microscope they needed to find the thing.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

garbon

#7
August 18, 2011, 02:00:17 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 18, 2011, 01:57:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2011, 01:09:44 PM
Quote from: dps on August 18, 2011, 09:14:10 AM
What I also don't get is why the patient was under general anesthesia instead of a local for a circumcision.  Well, I'm making an assumption there, but certainly if they were using a local, the doctor could have talked to the patient right then about it.

I had general.
That was because you wouldn't stop moving under local, and they couldn't deploy the microscope they needed to find the thing.

In your vast experience, have you encountered many 4-year olds with sizable units? :unsure:
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

grumbler

#9
August 18, 2011, 02:55:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2011, 02:00:17 PM
In your vast experience, have you encountered many 4-year olds with sizable units? :unsure:
No experience.  I'll accept you as the expert witness.  :cool:
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

garbon

#10
August 18, 2011, 03:55:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 18, 2011, 02:55:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2011, 02:00:17 PM
In your vast experience, have you encountered many 4-year olds with sizable units? :unsure:
No experience.  I'll accept you as the expert witness.  :cool:

I can only speak for myself - but I figured since you didn't meet me then, you must have other significant experience.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Martinus

#11
August 18, 2011, 04:32:49 PM
I wonder if this is the worst excuse ever.

"Doctor! WTF! I wanted a circumcision, and now I have no penis!"  :mad:
"Uhm, uh, there was this cancer there. We had to amputate. No, really." :unsure:

DGuller

#12
August 18, 2011, 04:39:48 PM
Don't they do circumcision in the malls these days?

alfred russel

#13
August 18, 2011, 06:01:29 PM
The doctor was asked to remove the patient's foreskin, and it seems the doctor has done so.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Caliga

#14
August 18, 2011, 06:34:22 PM
Hah, Waddy.  Redneck central. :lol:

There was this big to-do last year because the interstate sign, which had read "Waddy[next line]Peytona" since time immemorial was switched to "Peytona[next line]Waddy", and the good folks of Waddy was deeply offended.  Threats of violence were made, even.
0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points
Print
Go Up Pages1 2
User actions