Man emasculated due to cancer; sues.

[AiliailiA]

Or gone first person on his lesbian fantasies ... still an option come to think of it ...

Damn it, I can't write a whole sentence without making a pun. I'm a guy and I find this funny. I should probably put my penis on eBay, apparently I don't value it like other guys do.

Nah, I think it's pretty funny in spite of my genitalia. Hell, I'd have mine taken off if it was going to kill me. Sure, peeing would never feel the same again, but I'd be alive long enough to write a bestselling novel about overcoming my loss:

"Your Penis or Your Life: A True Story of an Impossible Choice"

My book (still in early draft): "Your Penis And Your Life: How To Live to 100 Without Losing Your VIrginity"

[The Parkus Empire]

I just had an image in my head of a penis doing some feat of war, being romanticized in a painting.

The moment I read this sentence I imagined Napoleon's head replaced with a penis riding a horse into battle and being beaten down by bear cavalry. Then his 'head' was ripped off.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

How would doctors be able to save lives in the US without fear of lawsuits? I mean, I am not sure if it is in regards to this specific case but I am concerned about the risk of getting sued just for removing a finger due to a flesh-eating bug.

[AiliailiA]

besides, the hospital settled out of court.

Party pooper

[Unilisia]

The moment I read this sentence I imagined Napoleon's head replaced with a penis riding a horse into battle and being beaten down by bear cavalry. Then his 'head' was ripped off.

Oh wow.

[AiliailiA]

How would doctors be able to save lives in the US without fear of lawsuits? I mean, I am not sure if it is in regards to this specific case but I am concerned about the risk of getting sued just for removing a finger due to a flesh-eating bug.

Everyone who does anything has to have to insurance. And everyone sues everyone else, so everyone gets rich!

Hang on. My landlord stopped asking for rent and I can't get a plumber to fix my toilet ... but I step outside the front door and five lawyers are there grinning at me and offering their services pro bono?

What the hell, I'll employ one of them to sue the others for harassment.

[Forsakia]

The lawyer, Kevin George, said Dr Patterson had never given any indication before the 2007 procedure that Mr Seaton was suffering from cancer.

So essentially the guy went in thinking he had some inflamation and woke up missing part of his penis and told he had cancer.

Unless he was actually going to die really soon, then I think it'd be better to wake him up, tell him the situation, get a second opinion if he wants it and y'know, run some other tests before do anything major.

[Northwest Slobovia]

How would doctors be able to save lives in the US without fear of lawsuits? I mean, I am not sure if it is in regards to this specific case but I am concerned about the risk of getting sued just for removing a finger due to a flesh-eating bug.

Everyone who does anything has to have to insurance.

Pretty much. It's an extremely high cost of doing business.

And yes, it's a stupid system, but many of the proposed reforms are worse than the disease.

[Dakini]

Well I'm not sure if I'd want to live without a penis. There are certain levels of existence we are all willing to accept and some we are not able to accept.

I think I can accept existence without a penis. Women get along fine without one. I'd still be extremely dismayed, though, as my penis provides me with considerable satisfaction on a not infrequent basis, and women get vaginas, so I'd be fucked every way but literally.

Meh, you'd still have a prostate. (And on ladies, the funner part is the clitoris, fyi)


My thing is, the doctor he's suing only removed part of the penis. He then went and got another operation to amputate the rest because it was riddled with cancer. Also, how much loss of love and affection would his wife have if he had died of penile cancer because the doctor didn't do the initial operation?

Plus, there are dildos. Someone should have introduced this couple to these.

[AiliailiA]

Everyone who does anything has to have to insurance.

Pretty much. It's an extremely high cost of doing business.

And yes, it's a stupid system, but many of the proposed reforms are worse than the disease.

It's a system with high overheads. Redistribution of wealth, but courts, lawyers and insurance companies all get a cut.

Courts don't make any money from it, because court costs are conservative (being set by government). Lawyers and insurance companies just get fatter and fatter the more people sue each other. You have to suspect "breaking windows" conspiracy there.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Everyone who does anything has to have to insurance.

Pretty much. It's an extremely high cost of doing business.

And yes, it's a stupid system, but many of the proposed reforms are worse than the disease.

I understand but I recognise that lawsuits can only go far then it becomes a serious concern or cause a chilling effect to an area of practice.

[Dakini]

The lawyer, Kevin George, said Dr Patterson had never given any indication before the 2007 procedure that Mr Seaton was suffering from cancer.

So essentially the guy went in thinking he had some inflamation and woke up missing part of his penis and told he had cancer.

Unless he was actually going to die really soon, then I think it'd be better to wake him up, tell him the situation, get a second opinion if he wants it and y'know, run some other tests before do anything major.

Except that every time you put a patient under general anaesthetic, you take a risk with their life.

Also, the first doctor didn't take his entire penis off, another doctor did.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

Except that every time you put a patient under general anaesthetic, you take a risk with their life.

As you do when you increase the scope of the operation.

[JJ Place]

The male per capita percentage of the population is a little under 50% of the total population of the developed world. There are 13 jures on a jury. That's an automatic 5 votes to the guilt of this doctor.

Must be a poor jury since they're not supposed to be researching anything that isn't presented in court. Hard to see that automatic guilty if the doctor presents a signed contract that had been explained in detail to this fellow.

Then again, this man is suing a doctor who saved his life, so I doubt he thought it through very far and is probably trying to make some money.

That is why it is a joke, my friend.

[Dakini]

Except that every time you put a patient under general anaesthetic, you take a risk with their life.

As you do when you increase the scope of the operation.

Considering that a different doctor at a later time took the rest of it off, it probably had to come off anyway (if the guy didn't want to die of penile cancer anyway). So it would have been taking extra risks (increasing the scope of the operation + extra anaesthetic).

Also considering that the man signed a paper allowing the doctor to increase the scope of the operation if necessary....

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

He's no longer going to be able to "plant the flag"...?

That's why he tried to capture so many instead.

"He became so addicted that he eventually whacked his bonaparte."

What a wanker...

[The Merchant Republics]

Can't graft an artificial one's yet?

I mean a penis doesn't really have a whole lot of functioning beyond contract/expand, everything else is located inside, they already do a similar procedure for transgendered persons don't they? So why can't this guy just get a new penis.

Is it weird that I have almost no attachment to my own? I like I guess, does it's job right, rather necessary for eventual goal of having a family. I guess it's one of those things that you don't miss until it's gone.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

Considering that a different doctor at a later time took the rest of it off, it probably had to come off anyway (if the guy didn't want to die of penile cancer anyway). So it would have been taking extra risks (increasing the scope of the operation + extra anaesthetic).

The initial doctor didn't make his decision with the aid of subsequent histology and pathological study on the tissue. That he possibly lucked out doesn't particularly matter if the patient didn't truly consent to the operation performed.

Also considering that the man signed a paper allowing the doctor to increase the scope of the operation if necessary....

The validity of which can be debated.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Pretty much. It's an extremely high cost of doing business.

And yes, it's a stupid system, but many of the proposed reforms are worse than the disease.

I understand but I recognise that lawsuits can only go far then it becomes a serious concern or cause a chilling effect to an area of practice.

Yup. It's believed to be partially responsible for the lack of OB/GYN doctors in some parts of the country.

[Dakini]

Can't graft an artificial one's yet?

I mean a penis doesn't really have a whole lot of functioning beyond contract/expand, everything else is located inside, they already do a similar procedure for transgendered persons don't they? So why can't this guy just get a new penis.

I think that FTM transgendered individuals get the sort end of the stick when it comes to genital reconstruction (which is why some of them just don't bother). The procedure is also different from what they'd do for a biological man who has lost his penis (I think it involves turning the clitoris into a penis somehow since the former is analogous to the latter).

[Dakini]

Considering that a different doctor at a later time took the rest of it off, it probably had to come off anyway (if the guy didn't want to die of penile cancer anyway). So it would have been taking extra risks (increasing the scope of the operation + extra anaesthetic).

The initial doctor didn't make his decision with the aid of subsequent histology and pathological study on the tissue. That he possibly lucked out doesn't particularly matter if the patient didn't truly consent to the operation performed.

Also considering that the man signed a paper allowing the doctor to increase the scope of the operation if necessary....

The validity of which can be debated.

How can the validity be debated? The man thought he was going in to get circumcised to deal with a large infection, he wasn't emotionally distraught and he didn't think anything particularly horrific was happening with his junk. He couldn't have been intoxicated or they wouldn't have allowed the surgery to continue, someone probably read the whole thing and explained it to him before he signed it (and really, if they didn't it's his fault for not signing it without understanding it and asking sufficient questions). The patient definitely consented. Whether or not he bothered to figure out what he was consenting to is another matter (and not the doctor's fault).

If you're going to argue that the doctor should have taken a small biopsy first instead of taking off the head, that's one thing. However, I'd trust that doctors are able to distinguish between a normal penis and an extremely cancerous one when they're doing surgery on it (this is often a large part of their job), so removing the cancerous part seems entirely reasonable. I mean, if I was going in to get my appendix out and the doctor found a tumour on my colon, I'd be pretty happy if they took the tumour off as well while they're poking around in there.

That said, this doctor is only indirectly the reason he's got nothing there. Another doctor removed the rest. Is he next on the "to sue" list or something?

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

How can the validity be debated?

As follows

he wasn't emotionally distraught and he didn't think anything particularly horrific was happening with his junk.

Prove it

someone probably read the whole thing and explained it to him before he signed it

Prove it

(and really, if they didn't it's his fault for not signing it without understanding it and asking sufficient questions).

Which doesn't really matter if they have a duty to explain it anyway

The patient definitely consented. Whether or not he bothered to figure out what he was consenting to is another matter (and not the doctor's fault).

Prove he provided informed consent. Prove it isn't a duty of the doctor to ensure informed consent.

However, I'd trust that doctors are able to distinguish between a normal penis and an extremely cancerous one when they're doing surgery on it (this is often a large part of their job)

You might be willing to trust that your doc has perfect spot diagnosis skills. Others aren't and the legal room for manouveur on the doctors part isn't clear from one article and a lack of legal knowledge on either of our parts

, so removing the cancerous part seems entirely reasonable. I mean, if I was going in to get my appendix out and the doctor found a tumour on my colon, I'd be pretty happy if they took the tumour off as well while they're poking around in there.

It doesnt matter if you were happy or not. It matters whether that was within the remit of the doctor.

That said, this doctor is only indirectly the reason he's got nothing there. Another doctor removed the rest. Is he next on the "to sue" list or something?

Presumably he did provide informed consent for the latter op.

Just to clarify I don't really care if you do provide evidence of all of the above. My point is that the vast majority of the posts so far have been doing the typical thing of making a massive leap with the aid of a multitude of assumptions to call the patient an idiot without considering the potential events which would make his claims valid.

[Der Teutoniker]

That said, this doctor is only indirectly the reason he's got nothing there. Another doctor removed the rest. Is he next on the "to sue" list or something?

The future removal of the stump is immaterial to this case. When you lack the definition, and sensory nerve endings that make the penis most of what it is, it is hard to say you have a penis. Having and operation on it later to suit his preferences does not mean that ultimately, he wanted it gone in the first place.

As for the rest of your post, he did sign a waiver allowing other necessary operations to happen - should an emergency warrant it. I think he is suing because he did not feel like the immediate removal of the head of his penis was immediately necessary. If I go in to a doctor to have my appendix out, and while doing that he removes my stomach, he does not get a free pass because I signed an emergency operation waiver. Cancer is something that rarely needs immediate, on-the-spot removal. Very likely the man had time to at least discuss possible treatments, or even get a second opinion - meaning that the operation was not immediately necessary to save his life right that instance, and therefore not covered by the waiver he signed.

No medical waiver I have ever heard of is a catch-all waiver. There is no way that he signed a "You legally have to let the doctor do whatever he wants to you, and you can't sue no matter what" waiver, in fact, I'm pretty sure such a waiver would be dismissed for being entirely ridiculous, had he signed one in the first place.

[The You Es uv Aye]

wuld u ratter be dead with peepee or alive withouut a peniss.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

wuld u ratter be dead with peepee or alive withouut a peniss.

Alive without. I like my vagina.