Man emasculated due to cancer; sues.

[Periodspace 2]

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"

Owch.

[Dakini]

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.

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."

[The Tribes Of Longton]

Well, if he signed it before the surgery (which I'm sure he did; doctors DON"T make people sign things when they're under), then it was his own fault if he didn't read it.

Without knowing much about this case, I think part of the problem is the man did not feel this constituted an emergency. There was cancer, but that surely doesn't mean he would die before getting a second opinion.

Cancer does not mean "start slicing and dicing". There are often paths taken to treat cancer that don't involve the removal of organs.

Actually, with penile cancer it sort of does. Most of the time, excision of the primary tumour is considered the best initial treatment and method of biopsy. As for the consent, it depends on what the man signed before the surgery. It's difficult to draw any conclusions from that BBC article because it's a bit sparse on the info.

[New Octopucta]

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."

Ew. That's the point where any reasonable person says "Fuck it", and starts plotting how to coerce his insurance company into paying for his new penis.

[Sovereign Spirits]

As some have stated, consent is part of the big issue here. I'd like to see some lawyers chime in (sudden penile cancerous removal surgery legal experts preferred) and let us know under what circumstances would the case be solid and under what would have to have happened in order for the case to have little to no basis. Next, I'd like to know what actually occurred. Those two things put together should determine what the results will be.

It is better to be able to sue than not to be able to at all. It can only help you if you bother to solidify your case first. We'll see what happens.

[Alevuss]

According to the article, the doctor only removed the tip of his penis, so, it's not like he lost anything big*.

Since he supposedly still has a majority of his penis, I say this isn't too big a deal*. It's not like his supposed current penile state will effect too much what he did with it*. I assume he can still pee while standing up.

If he did lose the whole thing, well, I suppose that fairly complicates things like sex and going to the bathroom. If this is the case, they could have at least changed his sex entirely.

*That's what she said (These were unintentional) (My maturity level has just dropped so many levels)

I'd rather be alive without a penis, than dead with one. Would I still be in possession of the rest of my male genitalia. I feel like that would be awkward. If I'm going to lose some of it, I think I'd rather lose it all.

[Forsakia]

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.

How much is the risk (obviously general since we don't know the guy's medical state). And it's not like this guy knew he had a cancered toe and agreed to have that removed and then they had to chop off a foot.

They didn't know he had cancer and was just having a circumcision to have inflamation dealt with. Unless it's an absolute next few days emergency, surely it'd be better to run the normal slate of tests and scans they do to investigate cancer?

I mean it might be legal if he signed that paperwork, but I wouldn't exactly call it best practice.

And I know he didn't take the entire penis off, hence why I said "woke up missing part of his penis".

[Dakini]

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."

Ew. That's the point where any reasonable person says "Fuck it", and starts plotting how to coerce his insurance company into paying for his new penis.

...yeah... that thing was totally coming off anyway since it seems that the patient let it go without treatment for too long. He's probably lucky to be alive since it had spread into the rest of his penis by this point too (hence the subsequent further amputation), which means it was one step away from spreading to the lymph nodes.

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.

[Maxaxle]

Stupid lawsuit is stupid, however on the bright side he could have a vibrator implanted where he used to have a member .

[The Holy Twig]

Depending on the cause of the cancer, he might very well qualify for a Darwin Award.

[Tmutarakhan]

If he signed a document allowing the doctor to do nessicery treatment, as stated in the article, he has not legal basis, as the wording leaves it up the doctor to judge. However, I understand his feelings; Maybe the two of them should just sit down and talk it over before going to court.

The key word is "necessary"; there are some things that can be tried short of total amputation. At the very least, when the doctor discovered the cancer he ought to have waited until the patient was awake to discuss the situation, rather than give him a nasty surprise. It is not as if every minute was crucial.

[Idaho Conservatives]

The rare exception where the winner isn't dead. I suppose it depends if he has offspring.

[Dakini]

The rare exception where the winner isn't dead. I suppose it depends if he has offspring.

In principle, he could probably have children assuming everything else is there.

[Forsakia]

Ew. That's the point where any reasonable person says "Fuck it", and starts plotting how to coerce his insurance company into paying for his new penis.

...yeah... that thing was totally coming off anyway since it seems that the patient let it go without treatment for too long. He's probably lucky to be alive since it had spread into the rest of his penis by this point too (hence the subsequent further amputation), which means it was one step away from spreading to the lymph nodes.

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.

What I'm wondering is, don't they have pre-op checks before-hand? I mean surely he couldn't arrange a circumcision and go under the knife without anyone at the hospital checking it out first? And if it was that bad why didn't it get seen then?

[Dakini]

...yeah... that thing was totally coming off anyway since it seems that the patient let it go without treatment for too long. He's probably lucky to be alive since it had spread into the rest of his penis by this point too (hence the subsequent further amputation), which means it was one step away from spreading to the lymph nodes.

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.

What I'm wondering is, don't they have pre-op checks before-hand? I mean surely he couldn't arrange a circumcision and go under the knife without anyone at the hospital checking it out first? And if it was that bad why didn't it get seen then?

I don't know. In theory, someone referred him for the circumcision in the first place and they should have noticed something as well. Unless the swelling was so bad and the foreskin wasn't retracting so they couldn't get a decent look. Apparently during the surgery, they couldn't even catheterize the guy.

[Mushet]

Stupid lawsuit is stupid, however on the bright side he could have a vibrator implanted where he used to have a member .

If that ever happens to me *shivers then knocks on wood* God forbid

That's what I would do, it'll be heated too

[JuNii]

Stupid lawsuit is stupid, however on the bright side he could have a vibrator implanted where he used to have a member .

... I like this idea... however, passing through Airport security would be something to watch...

[Der Teutoniker]

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.

[Coccygia]

What a dick!

[AiliailiA]

Ew. That's the point where any reasonable person says "Fuck it", and starts plotting how to coerce his insurance company into paying for his new penis.

...yeah... that thing was totally coming off anyway since it seems that the patient let it go without treatment for too long. He's probably lucky to be alive since it had spread into the rest of his penis by this point too (hence the subsequent further amputation), which means it was one step away from spreading to the lymph nodes.

I don't get how a person could let part of themselves get so full of cancer before seeing a doctor though.

Hey, it was getting bigger and longer ... that's more important the the shape or texture you know.

Yeah, what an idiot.

[AiliailiA]

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.

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.

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

[Genivaria]

NEWSFLASH: Man smokes a pack of cigarettes every day for 30 years and is now suing because he has lung cancer.
More stupid people at 10!

[New Kilballyowen]

Is that really a real place

On a more serious note, if the man didn't want his cancerous penis removed, he should have just let himself die.

I think that's kind of the issue though, isn't it? He wasn't given the choice to either get it removed or just let himself die. He didn't know about the cancer until he'd woken up from the surgery.

[Forsakia]

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.

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.