Kentucky goes to hospital for a circumcision and gets his penis amputated.

[alphaboi867]

Well, this is unsettling. Man goes to hositpal for a circumcision, while he's in surgery the surgeon apparently found cancer and deemed it necessary to remove his penis then & there; without bother to wake him or anything. There has got to be more to it than this. Are the consent forms really that vague? Why couldn't removing the penis wait until Mr Seaton was able to get a 2nd opinion or at least be awake and able to give/deny consent? Assuming his wife was the one to take him to the hospital and was present in the hospital during the operation why wasn't she asked; presumably she has power of attorney? Note the hospital settled out of court; presumably with everything sealed and no admission of anything by anyone.

I seriously belive I'd rather die of cancer than have my penis cut off. If I was Mr Seaton I probally would've murdered Dr Patterson by now (or at least cut his dick off).

[Larry Mudd]

Surgeons. Give 'em an inch, and...

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

Well, this is unsettling. Man goes to hositpal for a circumcision, while he's in surgery the surgeon apparently found cancer and deemed it necessary to remove his penis then & there; without bother to wake him or anything. There has got to be more to it than this. Are the consent forms really that vague? Why couldn't removing the penis wait until Mr Seaton was able to get a 2nd opinion or at least be awake and able to give/deny consent? Assuming his wife was the one to take him to the hospital and was present in the hospital during the operation why wasn't she asked; presumably she has power of attorney? Note the hospital settled out of court; presumably with everything sealed and no admission of anything by anyone.

I seriously belive I'd rather die of cancer than have my penis cut off. If I was Mr Seaton I probally would've murdered Dr Patterson by now (or at least cut his dick off).

You can always choose to kill yourself if an un-phallused life is so onerous. You cannot bring yourself back to life if you die of cancer.

[Folacin]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

You can always choose to kill yourself if an un-phallused life is so onerous. You cannot bring yourself back to life if you die of cancer.

But very few cancers will kill you in a day. I'd think waking him up and letting him know would have been appropriate. We obviously don't have the facts, but I'd think that chemotherapy would have perhaps been an option, or even radiation (where you might end up needing to lose your testicals anyway, but at least you'd have a penis).

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by Folacin

But very few cancers will kill you in a day. I'd think waking him up and letting him know would have been appropriate. We obviously don't have the facts, but I'd think that chemotherapy would have perhaps been an option, or even radiation (where you might end up needing to lose your testicals anyway, but at least you'd have a penis).

Oh, I don't disagree. My argument was only with alphaboi867's assertion that death was preferable to not having a penis. I should probably have snipped the rest of his post.

[howye]

Obligatory Simpsons Joke: What do expect from a Shelbyville doctor?

Now that we have that out of the way...

I have several questions:

1. If the cancer in the penis is so bad it has to be amputated RIGHT NOW, isn't it likely that it has already spread and the patient is screwed?
2. No really, he couldn't wait a couple of hours for the guy to wake up?
3. Was there actually cancer?
3b. If so was it that bad?
4. Guy went to Jewish Hospital for a circumcision and they got it wrong? Man, you would think they would have that procedure well in hand.

But seriously, I am curious to see if there was follow-up confirmation of the cancer diagnosis and an agreement with the doctor's course of action. Because if there is not, going to be real hard to convince the jury not to find for the plaintiff.

[MsWhatsit]

The Gawker headline for this story was:

Originally Posted by Gawker

Dick-Snip Vic to Cock-Chop Doc: You Prick

[JohnT]

There's always the chance that the wife consented to the dickectomy.

"Ma'am, we found your husband has cancer of the penis. There are a few things you need to discuss with your husband beforehand, but I recommend that we amputate it and..."
"REALLY? What the fuck are ya waiting for! What do I sign?"

[Moonlitherial]

Isn't that just a radical circumcision?

[aruvqan]

Sorry, there is no way in hell that the hospital could pay me off for the Doctor *not* waking me up to let me decide, or let my spouse/SO who holds my medical power of atty to decide. That doctor would lose his license, pay malpractice [actually his insurance company] and go to jail for grievous bodily harm.

[Freddy the Pig]

They geld a lot of thoroughbreds in Kentucky. Maybe the guy was hung like a horse and they thought he was equine.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

Oh, I don't disagree. My argument was only with alphaboi867's assertion that death was preferable to not having a penis. I should probably have snipped the rest of his post.

Clearly we disagree (& who nows I might change my mind if I'm ever in that situtation), but I still have the right to make that choice for myself. Indeed a competent adult has the legal right to refuse any & all medical treatment even when it will result in his death. It would appear this man was denyed the right to make that choice for himself. Even if he did decide to kill himself now he doesn't technically have the legal right to do so. Regardless of his wishes any doctor, nurse, EMT, police officer, etc who discovers him in the act is legally bound to treat him against his will. Even if all he does is express a desire to commit suicide he's automatically presumed incompetent and can be commited to a psych ward for 3 days (or more). And if he did it at home his wife could face criminal prosecution for not trying to stop him or call 911 if she was present.

I hope this trial get's more coverage. I'm really curious as to what the whole story is (or at least how much of it get's revealed in court).

[PunditLisa]

I wonder if it'll come out that the patient had an affair with the surgeon's wife...

[Marley23]

They cut off Kentucky's penis?

[Jackmannii]

Kentucky goes to hospital for a circumcision and get's his penis amputated.

I blame Tennessee.

But seriously: could there be a bit more to this story than that account suggests? Was this a complete or partial amputation? What did the consent form actually say (and did the patient understand what he was signing)? How did the surgeon know for sure it was cancer (was there an intraoperative frozen section diagnosis)?

This sounds worse than the previous Kentucky surgery scandal that I recall, but maybe the compleat facts will show otherwise.

[Peremensoe]

Maybe just a botched circumcision and they made up the cancer story as cover? After all the hospital-error horror stories of the last few years, that seems as likely as anything else.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

Maybe just a botched circumcision and they made up the cancer story as cover? After all the hospital-error horror stories of the last few years, that seems as likely as anything else.

Wouldn't the penis be sent to the pathologist after being removed? If so then the hospital would either have to have to fake a pathology report or send it directly to the incinerator & explain why they didn't save it to confirm the doctor's diagnosis. I doubt they just happen to have a bunch of cancerous penises sitting around in the freezer.

[DoctorJ]

The consent form that an overly tired and underpaid CNA makes you take a casual glance at before signing generally includes consent to perform any other procedures that may be deemed necessary by the surgeon. So if they discover a big tumor somewhere while they're taking your gallbladder out, they're not going to put you under again just to resect it.

That said, there are options well short of penectomy for most stages of penile cancer. And even if it was the only real option I can see why the patient might want to take it out for one last ride, if you will. (Personally, if it had to be done I'd much rather just wake up and find it done, instead of having to dread it. But I understand why people wouldn't feel that way.)

[BrotherCadfael]

Originally Posted by Marley23

They cut off Kentucky's penis?

[Homer]Florida? But that's America's wang![/Homer]

[Yllaria]

OK, reading the article, it was a "circumcision to treat inflammation", so there was a known problem before the surgery. It's very possible that the pre-surgery paperwork included permission to treat anything found needing treatment during the operation. The papers for my colonoscopy included permission to remove or treat anything they found. I wouldn't have expected to wake up with my colon gone, but it could have happened. Their concern was removing any polyps, but I can picture a sudden upgrade.

Doctors know that anesthesia is hard on the body and try to avoid multiple surgeries if possible. The article doesn't specify that he was under general anesthesia, but I'm guessing that a regular circumcision would have only needed a local, possibly with a tranquilizer, while an ectomy would need general. Which leaves me guessing that the doctor may have been expecting more than a circumcision from the beginning.

Without more information, and the judge has told the lawyers not to talk to the press, I have no idea what the situation was expected to be going into the operation. There could have been bad communication by the doctor; could have been stonewall denial by the patient; could have been both.

Would sending him into recovery have been such an improvement? The good news is we found the cause of the inflammation. The bad news is that it's cancer and we'll have to cut your penis off - but we wanted to be completely sure that you're ok with that so you have a pain pill and think about it and when you've recovered and signed the paper we'll schedule the rest of it in, oh, about three months. Sorry about the pain. The next recovery will probably be worse.

I suppose the flip side is that it precluded a second opinion. Theoretically, they could have gone for another treatment, or no treatment, instead. And if the doctor downplayed the form signing at all, I could see how the lawsuit happened. But I'm not going to get completely outraged until I know more. I guess the lesson is that when you sign one of those forms, you should write in a codicil if you don't want your dick cut off without your express permission. Or in the case of the colonoscopy - "removing polyps is ok, for anything more extensive, wake me up."

[SpoilerVirgin]

The article says that "Clay Robinson, Patterson's attorney, has previously said the urologist had permission to perform any medical procedure deemed necessary." So the plaintiff probably did sign a consent form, he just didn't realize what it might mean.

When I had a (benign) ovarian cyst removed, I had a discussion with the doctor about whether I would allow them to remove my ovary if necessary. I was given the option not to consent, in which case if they found cancer, or were unable to remove the cyst, they would have just closed me up and told me I needed a second surgery once I woke up. I decided to go ahead and sign the consent (I thought it made sense to just have the one surgery, and I was comfortable with losing my ovary if necessary), but fortunately they were able to remove just the cyst.

[YogSosoth]

There's gotta be more to this cock and bull story than we've been lead to believe

[Eve]

At least they left his superfluous apostrophe untouched.

[BlackKnight]

Maybe "get's" is a contraction of "get this", meaning, "pay attention, this is the important part".

Imagine a rural Kentucky accent:
"Kentucky goes t' hospital for a circumcision and - get[ thi]'s - ... his penis amputated!"

[Magiver]

I'm picturing the doctor as John Belushi with a samurai sword.

[lorene]

Why are we assuming the wife has power of attorney? It's unusual for a healthy, non-elderly adult to have that level of advance directive in place.

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by Yllaria

The article doesn't specify that he was under general anesthesia, but I'm guessing that a regular circumcision would have only needed a local, possibly with a tranquilizer, while an ectomy would need general. Which leaves me guessing that the doctor may have been expecting more than a circumcision from the beginning.

Good point. AFAIK a circumcision -- even one to deal with conditions such as phimosis or balanitis -- is almost universally ambulatory surgery requiring just a local block (Heck, it was done regularly since three thousand years BEFORE anesthetics!) And a penectomy is a way far more complicated procedure than a circumcision so that means they were prepared for more than merely recuffing the sleeve, so to speak.

[Yllaria]

Originally Posted by lorene

Why are we assuming the wife has power of attorney? It's unusual for a healthy, non-elderly adult to have that level of advance directive in place.

Some hospitals require it for every procedure. Our local one does. They don't keep them on file, either, so I've had to fill out four. That includes directives for an angiogram and a colonoscopy, both of which were done in their out-patient clinic and neither of which required general anesthesia or any cutting.

Things happen. Hospitals cover their asses.

[BigT]

I've never liked those contracts. It seems pretty coercive to me: don't sign this, and we won't operate, and you'll remain in pain/die/whatever.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by howye

the patient is screwed?

Not anymore.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by BigT

I've never liked those contracts. It seems pretty coercive to me: don't sign this, and we won't operate, and you'll remain in pain/die/whatever.

Yeah. It's like when they made me take a pregnancy test prior to emergency surgery for a potentially life threatening surgery with a real possibility of ending up with nerve damage in my face even with the most competent doctor available. I asked "what would you have done if I was pregnant?". The dweeby little med student/intern/whatever the hell he was started up with "Well, of course we'd wait until after you had the baby to -"

Like fuck you would, asshole - it's MY decision here, and I'm NOT waiting eight or nine months to get this taken care of, even if that means sterilizing an icepick at home and going at it on my own. Or yes, risking a miscarriage or having an abortion. Some of this medical stuff is VERY coercive - here, pee in this cup and depending on the results we'll either operate or just leave you in pain and maybe DIE because you have a fetus inside you. The dweeb seemed VERY surprised I'd "sacrifice" the 'baby" to take care of a medical emergency.

That's the problem with the consent forms - they're very broad, and you're essentially turning medical decisions over to someone who may or may not have a similar outlook and, in any case, doesn't have to live with the consequences of their actions.

I'm sure there's much more here than the story presented tells us. Likely, we'll never know the details.

It seems obvious that if the patient is present for what is expected to be a circumcision and it turns out there's rampant cancer you still shouldn't just lightly lop off his penis. It does seem odd to us laypeople that they didn't wake the guy up and say "We have bad news..." Maybe there's some bizarre cancer thing that is immediately life-threatening (Doper Docs? Is there?) but if there is I'm not aware of it. There's also the problem that, presumably, the man is in serious pain and you're asking him to sign a paper before you get him relief and fix his dick. Oh, nothing coercive or dicey about that, no, not at all ...

Not that I have a better answer at hand, I'll admit. Medicine regularly gets into difficult ethical situations.

[lorene]

Originally Posted by Yllaria

Some hospitals require it for every procedure. Our local one does. They don't keep them on file, either, so I've had to fill out four. That includes directives for an angiogram and a colonoscopy, both of which were done in their out-patient clinic and neither of which required general anesthesia or any cutting.

Things happen. Hospitals cover their asses.

Huh. Ignorance fought.
I know we have Health Care Proxies here, which is a form of advance directive, but it limits the decisions a person can make to times when the patient is unable to make them on their own. I just thought Power of Attorney was a little extreme here.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Originally Posted by Yllaria

Some hospitals require it for every procedure. Our local one does. They don't keep them on file, either, so I've had to fill out four.

I would be shocked (*shocked* I tell you) if those documents aren't still on file at the hospital, at least in electronic form. What good is a CYA document if it's not still there when your A needs C'd?

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by The Olympian

Ky. jury seated in penis amputation lawsuit

Male jurors with their legs crossed.

[StuffLikeThatThere]

Originally Posted by DoctorJ

The consent form that an overly tired and underpaid CNA makes you take a casual glance at before signing ...

I won't quibble with the overly tired bit, but underpaid? My CNA friend makes $100 an hour, at an ordinary local hospital of competence but no distinction. That seems okay to me.

[Annie-Xmas]

Originally Posted by Eve

At least they left his superfluous apostrophe untouched.

Eve, it's posts like this that make me so happy to have you return.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by StuffLikeThatThere

I won't quibble with the overly tired bit, but underpaid? My CNA friend makes $100 an hour, at an ordinary local hospital of competence but no distinction. That seems okay to me.

Jeez, what hospital is that? CNAs made just over $12 an hour at the hospital where I worked. $100 an hour is a lot more than RNs earn unless they're on overtime. I think your friend is bullshitting you.

[StuffLikeThatThere]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Jeez, what hospital is that? CNAs made just over $12 an hour at the hospital where I worked. $100 an hour is a lot more than RNs earn unless they're on overtime. I think your friend is bullshitting you.

Wait ... I may be having an acronym issue. I'm taking "CNA" to mean Certified Nurse Anesthetist. Is that the disconnect?

[Boyo Jim]

Where I'm at it means "Certified Nursing Assistant". It's about a six week course to get certified. They do most of the work that doesn't require detailed medical knowledge -- patient baths, changing bedding and bed pans, etc.

[StuffLikeThatThere]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Where I'm at it means "Certified Nursing Assistant". It's about a six week course to get certified. They do most of the work that doesn't require detailed medical knowledge -- patient baths, changing bedding and bed pans, etc.

Aha. Yeah, sorry about that. I'm sure they're underpaid here as well.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

Wouldn't the penis be sent to the pathologist after being removed? If so then the hospital would either have to have to fake a pathology report or send it directly to the incinerator & explain why they didn't save it to confirm the doctor's diagnosis. I doubt they just happen to have a bunch of cancerous penises sitting around in the freezer.

Nah, they're all floating around in jars of formalin in the lab cupboard.

Actually it's been years and years since I saw the last penectomy specimen. Early detection, one hopes.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by StuffLikeThatThere

Wait ... I may be having an acronym issue. I'm taking "CNA" to mean Certified Nurse Anesthetist. Is that the disconnect?

I think it's CRNA - Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist. At least it was at the hospital system where I used to work. CNAs are nursing assistants.

Regards,
Shodan

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by Eve

At least they left his superfluous apostrophe untouched.

Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas

Eve, it's posts like this that make me so happy to have you return.

If you liked that... here's a similar comment.

[guestchaz]

Originally Posted by Johnny L.A.

Not anymore.

because it would be to much of a pain in the ass

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Gary "Wombat" Robson

I would be shocked (*shocked* I tell you) if those documents aren't still on file at the hospital, at least in electronic form. What good is a CYA document if it's not still there when your A needs C'd?

You folks may be getting the Power of Attorney form (of which you need just one and the patient typically supplies) confused with the consent for treatment, of which one is required for each surgical procedure.

It is the consent that covers the hospital's A.


mmm

[antonio107]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

Kentucky goes to hospital for a circumcision and get's his penis amputated.

I blame Tennessee.

But seriously: could there be a bit more to this story than that account suggests?

Please tell me that was a deliberate attempt at the best pun ever.

Also, how does this man pee now? I'm just curious how that works.

[Noel Prosequi]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

Good point. AFAIK a circumcision -- even one to deal with conditions such as phimosis or balanitis -- is almost universally ambulatory surgery requiring just a local block ..(snip - hur hur)

So now you can pay to be cock blocked?

[It's Not Rocket Surgery!]

I wonder if they will subpoena anyone during the trial?

[Morgenstern]

Good thing they didn't find brain cancer.

[Autolycus]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

If you liked that... here's a similar comment.

Awww now, don't be jealous!