Man emasculated due to cancer; sues.

[Izarius]

I'll leave it to a court to decide that, rather than take your word for it.

The very real possibility that the man would have refused further surgery if he'd been conscious to make the decision, and gone ahead and fucking died, is rather immaterial. He signed an authority for the doctor to decide for him on the basis of medical need (broader than "will he certainly die before he could have another op" as you seem to think) so all the doctor needs to do is prove medical need. The patient delegated the decision so it's nowhere near as simple as "he didn't give consent"

I hope he doesn't get a cent.

That's not a carte blanche though to go off and do any procedure that the patient needed to get at some point. It's not granting a full medical proxy status.

Ideally you want a patient to sign off on any treatment they get. Sometimes in an operating room circumstances arise where surgeons have to do things beyond what was signed off on in order to save the patient.

If the patient is not in immediate danger then he should have been given the treatment choice before the partial amputation. Or at least consulted his wife in the next room.

This. I hate it when people get overly technical and stop applying common sense.

[Aurora-Nova]

Really, he shouldn't have done it without obtaining consent. I'd never have signed such a ridiculous contract, however.

[Brutland and Norden]

I was rather attached to my appendix. Then the little fucker tried to kill me and I consented to have someone cut me open, detach it, and throw it away.

At least, I think they threw it away. Perhaps some hungry med student fried it up and ate it. Don't really care.

We do not fry appendices. We eat them raw.

[Forsakia]

I was rather attached to my appendix. Then the little fucker tried to kill me and I consented to have someone cut me open, detach it, and throw it away.

At least, I think they threw it away. Perhaps some hungry med student fried it up and ate it. Don't really care.

We do not fry appendices. We eat them raw.

But what about appendixes? apologies for the terrible pedantry

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Considering that inflammation is one of the symptoms of penile cancer, finding lumps during surgery should at least warrant a biopsy and probably a wide excision. And considering that the most common treatment for penile cancer is surgical, it's unlikely the patient would have had other options.

Also, here I thought that penises were more than just fun. I thought they were useful for going to the bathroom too.

edit: nevermind, it wasn't one lump, it was many.

But Clay Robinson, attorney for Patterson, told jurors his client removed only the tip of Seaton's penis because it was so riddled with deadly penile cancer it "had the appearance of rotten cauliflower."

All of that post is entirely immaterial. A cancer patient has the right to refuse treatment. This man's life was not in such immediate jeopardy that he was going to die before he came too, therefore the doctor had no right to perform this operation on him, and it was not absolutely immediately required. The waiver could still excuse the doctor - but I'm pretty sure it won't at all.

The fact quite simply is that this operation was not a dire, immediate medical necessity, and the doctor is utterly, and entirely unexcused for making the decision that he did. Maybe the patient would have had literally no other treatment options - that's possible, but he still has the option to refuse treatment. He has the option to be informed, to make his own decisions regarding his medical procedures. This doctor will hopefully have his license revoked.

And really, it doesn't matter if there was one cancer lump, or a bajillion krillion mermillion cancer lumps. He was not going to die immediately - thereby removing any direct urgency to perform the surgery. Unless the waiver basically signs away all of the victims medical rights, he should clearly win the case.

He probably had it explained to him in fine detail before the surgery that he would be giving them the ability to perform additional surgical procedures in the event of unforeseen consequences that involve having your penis look like a diseased eggplant or maybe a turnip.

I doubt he thought that they might remove the turnip, because it was apparently nothing more than a giant tumour.

[Brutland and Norden]

We do not fry appendices. We eat them raw.

But what about appendixes? apologies for the terrible pedantry

Congratulations! For your smart remark, you get a free lobotomy!

[AiliailiA]

I'll leave it to a court to decide that, rather than take your word for it.

The very real possibility that the man would have refused further surgery if he'd been conscious to make the decision, and gone ahead and fucking died, is rather immaterial. He signed an authority for the doctor to decide for him on the basis of medical need (broader than "will he certainly die before he could have another op" as you seem to think) so all the doctor needs to do is prove medical need. The patient delegated the decision so it's nowhere near as simple as "he didn't give consent"

I hope he doesn't get a cent.

That's not a carte blanche though to go off and do any procedure that the patient needed to get at some point. It's not granting a full medical proxy status.

Ideally you want a patient to sign off on any treatment they get. Sometimes in an operating room circumstances arise where surgeons have to do things beyond what was signed off on in order to save the patient.

If the patient is not in immediate danger then he should have been given the treatment choice before the partial amputation. Or at least consulted his wife in the next room.

Yeah, fair enough. I went off half-cocked there.

I should have read the OP more carefully, because I missed that his wife was in the hospital waiting room. I'd rather assumed they were estranged from each other. It would be inappropriate to call up the wife if they were no longer close ... no reasonable assumption of legal attorney there. But I was wrong about that, in that she cared enough to come along to the hospital with him.

Also didn't know that the guy is illiterate, and what he "signed" was apparently read to him. It's quite possible he didn't really understand what he was agreeing to. That changes the situation quite a lot.

Therefore, I retract wishing he doesn't get a cent.

Now, he has already received a settlement from the hospital. If he gets compensation for "loss of service, love and affection" from Dr Patterson he'll almost certainly get compensation also from the trial of the "other doctor" mentioned, who amputated more of his penis. I'm concerned that each of these parties may be paying for the full damage done, so Mr Seaton is being over-compensated. If what the doctors did was so wrong, where is the criminal charge?

Surely if millions of dollars of harm have been done, there should be some criminal charge appropriate to that. People go to jail for far lesser damage when it's done to property. I'm really not comfortable with "filling the gaps" of an inadequate criminal law system using the civil courts with their lower standard of proof. It's so inflationary to the cost of medical procedures that the US simply can't afford it, not if they want any kind of decent health care anyway.

If we're looking at a sum in the millions (total of all three seemingly guilty parties) I think that would be excessive for the loss of a body part Mr Seaton would probably have opted to have removed if only he'd been asked.

I would sell my penis for a million dollars. I would do it today ... and I'm not as old as Mr Seaton, and nor does my penis have cancer in it.

I also have to question just how much loss of "service, love and affection" he really is suffering if his foreskin hasn't been retracted in all the time that cancer has been growing in there. Perhaps his wife (or someone else) gives him oral sex or masturbates him, but I suspect that intercourse is a sort of once-a-year thing if that. He's lost the prospect of peeing standing up (prospect, because I doubt he was standing up to pee before the op or else I pity whoever cleaned up after him) and the prospect of sex (prospect because I doubt he was having any before the operation). Perhaps in Kentucky no-one dares ask those questions, even in court.

But I'm dubious that was getting much and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been getting much if he'd been given a choice and had opted to keep the cancer.

He's just massively butthurt about it because no-one asked him. There's only so much compensation that "massively butthurt" deserves imo.

[Allanea]

The surgeon better hope he documented the consent pretty well.

Basically this.

You don't get to claim a halo and wings because "the thing I did to you against your will was really, really good for you!". Even if you are a doctor. Laws exist for a reason.

[The Parkus Empire]

The surgeon better hope he documented the consent pretty well.

Basically this.

You don't get to claim a halo and wings because "the thing I did to you against your will was really, really good for you!". Even if you are a doctor. Laws exist for a reason.

Trust me, I'm doctor.

[AiliailiA]

The surgeon better hope he documented the consent pretty well.

Basically this.

You don't get to claim a halo and wings because "the thing I did to you against your will was really, really good for you!". Even if you are a doctor. Laws exist for a reason.

If the doctor broke the law then criminal charges should be brought against him.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Isn't this quite an old story?
Also, not sure about suing, but would you want to live without a penis?

I'd probably demand a penis replacement (lol, somehow) as part of the procedure.

[AiliailiA]

Isn't this quite an old story?

Happened four years ago, or perhaps you heard something since when the hospital settled.
Trial of Dr Patterson is now.

Also, not sure about suing, but would you want to live without a penis?

I'd probably demand a penis replacement (lol, somehow) as part of the procedure.

If only the hospital had kept the diseased one. They could sew it back on.

[Allanea]

I would sell my penis for a million dollars.

Which is not really relevant here.

With a lot of crime the 'harm' caused is not really limited to the loss of money or property or its equivalent.

Prostitutes are willing to provide - for example - sexual services for a fee. Were someone to rape a prostitute - the compensation for this act would be far exceeding what the woman would receive for a legitimate sex act.

The lack of consent is what matters here.

Proper informed consent is really, really important in hospital settings. If a physician or a hospital messes up that principle they deserve to be hit in the pocketbook.

If what the doctors did was so wrong, where is the criminal charge?

You know and I know - and you mentioned it - that the criminal law system is inadequate in the United STates. Perhaps no law exists to charge this physician criminally - this does not in any way excuse his actions.

[AiliailiA]

I would sell my penis for a million dollars.

Which is not really relevant here.

With a lot of crime the 'harm' caused is not really limited to the loss of money or property or its equivalent.

Prostitutes are willing to provide - for example - sexual services for a fee. Were someone to rape a prostitute - the compensation for this act would be far exceeding what the woman would receive for a legitimate sex act.

The lack of consent is what matters here.

Proper informed consent is really, really important in hospital settings. If a physician or a hospital messes up that principle they deserve to be hit in the pocketbook.

Using your analogy, the punishment for raping a prostitute should be ... hmm, that doesn't really work does it?

If what the doctors did was so wrong, where is the criminal charge?

You know and I know - and you mentioned it - that the criminal law system is inadequate in the United STates. Perhaps no law exists to charge this physician criminally - this does not in any way excuse his actions.

Of course there are criminal charges that could be brought against him. So either there is some failure on the part of the prosecutor, the prosecutor doesn't think any jury would convict ... or maybe it's not actually criminal wrongdoing.

And if it should be, how would we formulate such a law so that it expresses a principle (consent, or sovereignty of the body) and not just an anti-doctor law?

Or perhaps we could allow civil courts to jail those found guilty, which would at least remove punitive damages from the equation. Downside: people are deprived of their liberty on a lower standard of proof.

Or abolish punitive damages ... ie, the plaintiff is only compensated to the extent the court believes they were harmed.

[Allanea]

Using your analogy, the punishment for raping a prostitute should be ... hmm, that doesn't really work does it?

Uh, you do know there are civil proceedings for rape as well as criminal ones, right?

And if it should be, how would we formulate such a law so that it expresses a principle (consent, or sovereignty of the body) and not just an anti-doctor law?

How is it an anti-doctor law? I'm pretty sure the same legal and moral principle applies in some way in almost all areas of the law.

[AiliailiA]

Using your analogy, the punishment for raping a prostitute should be ... hmm, that doesn't really work does it?

Uh, you do know there are civil proceedings for rape as well as criminal ones, right?

Don't they only succeed if there was a criminal conviction first?

No court is going to award damages as punishment in that case, because that would be in contempt of a criminal court. They only award compensation, which isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about a system being used for punishment where the criminal law system seems inadequate.

I wish you hadn't grasped for that particular example of "without consent". Try to find one which cannot be a criminal charge but can be a civil one.

And if it should be, how would we formulate such a law so that it expresses a principle (consent, or sovereignty of the body) and not just an anti-doctor law?

How is it an anti-doctor law? I'm pretty sure the same legal and moral principle applies in some way in almost all areas of the law.

OK, forget that I asked then. I'm not suggesting any solutions.

[Tubbsalot]

Yeah, fair enough. I went off half-cocked there.

A man lost his penis, and you're making jokes?

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

Yeah, fair enough. I went off half-cocked there.

A man lost his penis, and you're making jokes?

I didn't see that joke at first glans. What a prick.

[Allanea]

Don't they only succeed if there was a criminal conviction first?

Not to my knowledge. In fact, there are examples (in the case of other crimes) of civil proceedings suceeding even against a defendant who gets a not-guilty verdict in the criminal proceeding.

This here site states:

http://www.helpandhealing.org/Civil%20Suit.htm

Source: National Crime Victim Bar Association)
Regardless of the outcome of the criminal prosecution, or even if there was no prosecution, crime victims can file civil lawsuits against offenders and other responsible parties. Unlike the criminal justice process, the civil justice system does not attempt to determine an offender’s guilt or innocence. Offenders are also not put in prison. Rather, civil courts attempt to ascertain whether an offender or a third party is liable for the injuries sustained as a result of the crime

[Ashmoria]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14619926

Too lazy to quote article click the link.

tl;dr:

"I want a circumcision but lol I have penis cancer and signed a contract that lets the doctor deal with unforeseen consequences or ailments during the operation so lets see wat they do hurp durp"

*Doctors remove diseased limb due to cancerous growth*

"Noooo they saved my life bawwwww"

he was right to sue and right to have gotten money from it.

a person has the right to a second freaking opinion. he had the right to a FIRST opinion. he got the doctor's decision to treat his cancer in the only way the doctor had available to him at that moment.

thats not right.

[Dakini]

I don't get how a person could let part of themselves get so full of cancer before seeing a doctor though. I mean, I see a funny mole and I'm rushing to have that sucker biopsied.

Canada.

Right. It doesn't cost me anything to be paranoid about my health. But still, it must have been non-functional at that point (maybe he could pee out of it).

Suing for loss of love an affection is probably bullshit since he and his wife probably weren't getting it on anyway with the condition of his member pre-surgery. It's unlikely they would have been doing anything post surgery once the rotten cauliflower was revealed by the removal of the foreskin either... I mean, gross.

[The Tribes Of Longton]

Canada.

Right. It doesn't cost me anything to be paranoid about my health. But still, it must have been non-functional at that point (maybe he could pee out of it).

You'd be surprised how long people will avoid seeking consultation, for any number of reasons: embarrassment, not wanting to cause a fuss, denial, normalising the condition (oh it's just a spot)...I've heard of plenty of cases where some old dear rocks into her GP because of feeling a bit tired, then on examination she's got some horrific ulcerating breast cancer that looks and smells more akin to petrified manure than a breast. As mad as it seems, some people will ignore life-threatening conditions because they can't be bothered with the treatment.

[Dakini]

Right. It doesn't cost me anything to be paranoid about my health. But still, it must have been non-functional at that point (maybe he could pee out of it).

You'd be surprised how long people will avoid seeking consultation, for any number of reasons: embarrassment, not wanting to cause a fuss, denial, normalising the condition (oh it's just a spot)...I've heard of plenty of cases where some old dear rocks into her GP because of feeling a bit tired, then on examination she's got some horrific ulcerating breast cancer that looks and smells more akin to petrified manure than a breast. As mad as it seems, some people will ignore life-threatening conditions because they can't be bothered with the treatment.

...this is why people should do annual physicals.

[Wazkyraque]

Dumb Lawsuit.
But I've heard worse.

[AiliailiA]

Arguably he wasn't examined properly before surgery. Perhaps the general anesthetic wasn't strictly necessary but was used to save him embarrassment.

I'm guessing though that if the surgeon began the operation intending to cut to foreskin to separate it from an infected glans (as he testified) that a non-surgical method would have been tried first. Like, and I'm not trying to be sleazy here, some kind of creme or lubricant with manual manipulation. A local anesthetic would have sufficed for that.