Yeah, I am entirely unsurprised that there is more to this story than just “reckless doctor cuts off man’s penis without permission.” With the additional facts, the doctor’s actions seem entirely reasonable. (And, frankly, the patient’s do not.)
Verdict is in!
However, if I have to have surgery any time in the near future, I’m gonna write in “except for cutting off any/all of my penis” at the end of the release I sign.
So, huh, he was suing the doctor who took off an inch, for loss of service, love, and affection, when apparently the cancer was so pervasive another doctor had to remove the whole thing later? Sounds like the first surgeon was conservative. No wonder he lost.
Wait. Wait, wait, wait, wait, waity wait-wait. So, I’m the only Doper here who cannot get past this sentence???
She’s armed, people. Armed with her considerable mental prowess as well as a fistful of cold deadly steel.
Me, I’m going to tread just that much more carefully from here out.
ETA: The Informed Consent issue is handled on a state by state basis, usually by the Dept. of Health. In NYS, the rules are quite clear. They govern how emergency personnel deal with people out in the world, on the side of the roadway, under a car, etc. Being able to provide informed consent and have it stand a legal test is serious stuff. In the case of the surgery, the quote that’s most curious is the one addressing the fact that the fellow’s wife did not accompany him into pre-op. Why was she not asked to go over the legal documents that accompany surgical procedures? Was the hospital in fact at fault here for not sitting said wife down and explaining what her responsibility is in this situation?
Very weird.
Oh my…
“When you hear about someone going in for a circumcision and it turned into a partial amputation, there’s going to be a reaction, but it was a pretty clear-cut case. There was no liability here.” Oh, you just couldn’t resist, could you?
There’s a reason the phrase " and Penis ensued " is so popular around here.
If I’m parsing this right, there was pee backing up and damaging his kidneys. Dialysis removes waste materials from the blood, it does not remove pee from the bladder and its associated tubes. Dialysis would therefore not save the kidneys from damage.
I have no clue how quickly the pressure had to be removed. I also have no clue whether the suprapubic catheter that **syncope **explained to us would have worked. But dialysis would not have helped the kidneys even a little.
Well, the hospital had already settled, meaning they gave him money to go away. Why wouldn’t he try again with the doctor?
And they get real pissy if you insist on taking the time to read it. Really, the impression I get is they don’t want you to read it, just sign it. God forbid if you express any protest at any provision. It’s all very one-sided.
And… I’ve started the new year by waking up a zombie!
Nevermind… Happy New Year everyone!
This is a sincere question: what circumstances led to you replying to a 4 year old thread, when you had been a participant in it all along? I’m genuinely curious!
A zombie penis, no less!
ETA: Dammit why do I never look at the dates before posting??
I’m glad you did. If you hadn’t, I’d never have seen this:
Classic 
The way the title’s phrased made me think they gave the Kentucky Bend back to Missouri.
Someone referenced this thread in another thread and I felt compelled to reply to a post prior to reading all the way to the end. If I had, I would have realized I’d already been here in the past and…
…I would have looked at the date.