Man sues doctor for amputating his penis in what was supposed to be a routine circumc

Man sues doctor for amputating his penis in what was supposed to be a routine circumcision
BY Larry Mcshane
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Thursday, August 18th 2011, 1:24 PM

When Philip Seaton woke up after surgery in 2007, it was too late - make that way, way too late - to seek a second opinion.

The Kentucky man was in court Thursday, suing his doctor for amputating his penis during what was scheduled as a routine circumcision to relieve inflammation.

Seaton and his wife Deborah are seeking unspecified damages from Dr. John Patterson to compensate the couple for "loss of service, love and affection."...

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...upposed_to_be_a_routine_ci.html#ixzz1VRYJwPrc

Talk about getting the short end of the stick.

It is terrible to laugh. That poor poor man. But there are just sooo many one-liners that spring to mind. I am trying to avoid the temptation. :innocent:

:noooo:Man down.

I read the title of this thread and I immediately thought "He probably has a good case".

No doubt it would have been a better option to let the patient know about the cancer and then schedule emergency surgery if necessary. Is the doctor even a cancer specialist who can say with a glance how malignant the tumor he sees is and whether it could be cured by radiation therapy or cancer drugs?

I think he should win his case, based on what we know from that article.

Seaton and his wife Deborah are seeking unspecified damages from Dr. John Patterson to compensate the couple for "loss of service, love and affection."

Click to expand...

I do hope they realize their situation isn't quite that bad after they have had some time to think about it. He lost his penis but the capacity for love and affection is not dependent on that organ. I've never had one but I like to think I'm capable of experiencing love and affection.

Donjeta said:

No doubt it would have been a better option to let the patient know about the cancer and then schedule emergency surgery if necessary. Is the doctor even a cancer specialist who can say with a glance how malignant the tumor he sees is and whether it could be cured by radiation therapy or cancer drugs?

I think he should win his case, based on what we know from that article.



I do hope they realize their situation isn't quite that bad after they have had some time to think about it. He lost his penis but the capacity for love and affection is not dependent on that organ. I've never had one but I like to think I'm capable of experiencing love and affection.

Click to expand...

The surgeon should have at least consulted with the wife.

Hey, lets be honest here. I love my fiance very much. I'd do anything to preserve his life. If that meant amputating his penis, so be it. But if his penis was cut off during surgery for any reason other than emergency life-saving need, I'd be pissed off too.

You can't just say 'Hmm, that big toe looks cancerous.. we'll just chop it off during this cholecystectomy and explain later.' For all that doctor knew, that cancer could have been EVERYWHERE and cutting off the penis would have been futile.

Also, we don't know the man's age. He and his wife could still be in child bearing years. He should have been given the chance to freeze semen if the penis needed to be amputated.

If the doctor just amputated his penis and his testicles are intact they can get semen straight from the testicles so it's still not too late for that, unless he has had to have additional cancer treatments that affect semen production.

Mr. Seaton is in his sixties according to http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9802366 so maybe he's had children already.

Paintr said:

It is terrible to laugh. That poor poor man. But there are just sooo many one-liners that spring to mind. I am trying to avoid the temptation. :innocent:

Click to expand...

Shooey, phew, I was afraid I was the only one that possibly grinned ok snickered when reading this. I can't imagine the shock and great disappointment the patient felt. On a positive note, he's 60. He had several decades of normalcy. imo

Donjeta said:

If the doctor just amputated his penis and his testicles are intact they can get semen straight from the testicles so it's still not too late for that, unless he has had to have additional cancer treatments that affect semen production.

Mr. Seaton is in his sixties according to http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9802366 so maybe he's had children already.

Click to expand...

Good point, thank you.

Personally, everything on my body is mine and I don't want it cut off until I say it can be cut off.

I did not read the article at first....just saw the title and thought whoa....I have assisted in a circ and no way can you mistakenly cut off the penis while doing a circ..........of course that was many years ago but I doubt the procedure has changed,lol. Interesting case to say the least,lol.

I just read the title of this story to my 4 teenage sons...they unanimously agreed that the Dr. should have gone ahead and just removed the mans heart. :floorlaugh:

:silly:

Steely Dan said:

The surgeon should have at least consulted with the wife.

Click to expand...

In emergency situations they should but IMO this probably wasn't the sort of immediately life-threatening emergency that can't wait until you can consult with the patient himself. Apparently he was in relatively good condition before the routine operation and I didn't see the articles mentioning any dangerous complications during the surgery. IMO it would have been the doctor's duty to consult with the patient because patients should have the right to refuse treatment and this is probably the kind of treatment that men very often would refuse. They should have done a full CT scan and other tests to rule out metastased cancer before operating as well because if he had been full of cancer everywhere in his body the penis amputation would have done nothing to prolong his life, it would just have dramatically lowered his quality of life in the last years or months, and it's part of medical ethics that a doctor should avoid doing harm to the patient. And if the doctor is not a cancer expert (do cancer experts spend their time performing routine circumcisions? I doubt it) he should have consulted another doctor in order to ask about other treatment options.

Leaving this kind of decision to the wife would IMO probably lead to lots of unnecessary strain in the relationship. Just imagine the fights if she told them to amputate and he was unhappy with the decision. ("YOU told them to cut it OFF?!?!?!??*+%¤(#)#))!!!!"). :cow:

Donjeta said:

In emergency situations they should but IMO this probably wasn't the sort of immediately life-threatening emergency that can't wait until you can consult with the patient himself. Apparently he was in relatively good condition before the routine operation and I didn't see the articles mentioning any dangerous complications during the surgery. IMO it would have been the doctor's duty to consult with the patient because patients should have the right to refuse treatment and this is probably the kind of treatment that men very often would refuse. They should have done a full CT scan and other tests to rule out metastased cancer before operating as well because if he had been full of cancer everywhere in his body the penis amputation would have done nothing to prolong his life, it would just have dramatically lowered his quality of life in the last years or months, and it's part of medical ethics that a doctor should avoid doing harm to the patient. And if the doctor is not a cancer expert (do cancer experts spend their time performing routine circumcisions? I doubt it) he should have consulted another doctor in order to ask about other treatment options.

Leaving this kind of decision to the wife would IMO probably lead to lots of unnecessary strain in the relationship. Just imagine the fights if she told them to amputate and he was unhappy with the decision. ("YOU told them to cut it OFF?!?!?!??*+%¤(#)#))!!!!"). :cow:

Click to expand...

If it was truly life and death consulting with the wife would be better than doing nothing. She may have told the doctor to wait until he could be informed of all possible treatments.

Donjeta said:

I do hope they realize their situation isn't quite that bad after they have had some time to think about it. He lost his penis but the capacity for love and affection is not dependent on that organ. I've never had one but I like to think I'm capable of experiencing love and affection.

Click to expand...

Respectfully snipped by me.

Loss of love and affection is basically lawyer-speak. There's a tort claim called "loss of consortium", where you can sue for being deprived of your "marital rights" to sexual activity, basically. I'm sure their relationship is still full of love and affection - I think they were just looking for more delicate ways to phrase it.

Did you notice that he had his circumcision at "Jewish Hospital"?

Okay anyway, if he didn't sign paperwork that said "if we find cancer, we may remove your penis", then he shouldn't have even had a BIOPSY without his own consent and to make choices related to HOW to treat the cancer.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/doctor-says-he-was-1130295.html

court today:

Dr Patterson~
"What I saw was not a penis. What I saw was cancer," he removed less than an inch of Seaton's penis. The rest of the penis was amputated by another doctor later.

Patterson testified the cancer prevented him from inserting a catheter into Seaton's urethra, and he was concerned about the possibility of kidney damage from urinary retention. Although Deborah Seaton was in the hospital waiting room, the doctor said he did not consult her because she had not accompanied her husband to office visits or into the pre-operation area, which he thought was unusual.
"My impression was she would not be someone I would ask what he would want,"

Seaton had before the surgery initialed a document authorizing treatment in unforeseen circumstances. George said the document had been read to Seaton because he cannot read.

Jurors were shown a photograph of the cancerous tip of a penis — not Seaton's. Testimony resumes tomorrow.

Okay, it makes it sound more reasonable (to have removed a cancerous portion because of urinary retention compared to chopping the whole thing off without any emergency need).

I don't know about the doctor's stated reasons for not consulting the wife. It sounds a bit iffy to me. How many wives accompany their husbands on office visits prior to a routine circumcision? I have been operated twice while married and I didn't have my husband with me either time. It didn't occur to me that I should as it was supposed to be a routine operation, nothing major. He wasn't even in the waiting room, he was at work. Even so, he is listed as my emergency contact and I would expect them to call him if anything goes wrong. Didn't they ask Mr. Seaton who is his preferred emergency contact or next of kin?

I don't understand why the jury were shown a photo of someone else's cancer. Possibly there weren't any photos of Mr. Seaton's available or maybe he doesn't want the jury to see them but what is the jury going to learn from a photo of someone else's cancer that may or may not be similar to the one that was cut off?

I suppose some of it depends on what was in the document authorizing treatment in unforeseen circumstances and whether they made sure he understood it properly. Why is he unable to read? A rhetorical question which I don't expect anybody to be able to answer but in some cases it is not enough to read a document aloud to an illiterate person because occasionally the inability to read is accompanied with wider problems in language processing or general intellectual ability and it may be difficult to understand a document that is read aloud as well, particularly if it's legalese.