More on case of guy who was penectomied when he went for circumcision

[SplitDik (imported)]

I feel the doctor was definitely wrong in this case. It is a person's decision to go through with something, even life-saving. And the patient has the right to get second opinion and look at alternate treatement. Only in a true emergency (car crash or something) should the doctor make such decisions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162- ... 91704.html

Man goes in for circumcision, wakes up without penis: What happened?

By Ryan Jaslow Topics News ,Research

Deborah and Phillip Seaton of Waddy, Ky., wait as their attorney confers with the judge in their civil case against Dr. John Patterson of Louisville Aug. 18, 2011 at the Shelby County Courthouse in Shelbyville, Ky. (Credit: AP)

(CBS/AP) A Kentucky man wants his day in court after going in for a routine circumcision on October 9, 2007 - and waking up without a penis.

Phillip Seaton of Waddy and his wife, Deborah claim in a lawsuit that Dr. John Patterson of Louisville did not consult them before removing Seaton's penis during a circumcision to treat inflammation. They're seeking damages for "loss of service, love and affection." The trial is set to begin Monday.

Dr. Patterson maintains the removal was necessary because he found cancer during the surgery.

Kevin George, Seatons' attorney, said Dr. Patterson's post-surgical notes show the doctor thought he detected cancer and removed the penis. Lab tests confirmed Seaton had squamous cell carcinoma.

But George said the situation was not an emergency, and argued the family should have been allowed to get a second opinion.

The doctor disagreed.

"While it is unfortunate that he developed this cancer, it is both unfair and unreasonable to blame a physician for providing what was appropriate and necessary care for his condition," Patterson said in a 2008 press release reported by The State Journal of Frankfurt, Ky.

Was the doctor right to cut off Seaton's penis? Or did Seaton get shafted?

The case raises a serious question. Can a doctor just decide to take this step if he/she feels it will save a patient's life?

Whether or not a surgeon has the right to perform surgery is "a difficult question," Dr. Douglas Diekema, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Task Force told CBS News in an email. "If the situation is truly, imminently life threatening, they can and should act."

But Diekema, who was not involved with this case, added, "If there is sufficient time to wake the patient and discuss the situation with the patient, that is generally preferred - particularly if the discovery of something like cancer will involve the removal of an organ or limb."

Would you want your doctor to make a radical decision if it saved your life?

[protoborg (imported)]

First off, the "cancer" the man supposedly had was a form of skin cancer. When was the last time you heard of someone have skin cancer on their penis?! Second, even if he did have it, you remove the skin to get rid of skin cancer, not the entire organ! Third, skin cancer is NOT fatal.

So basically, this idiot doctor did unnecessary surgery without the patient's consent. That is a violation of the patient's rights and of the law. The patient did NOT need his penis removed. He needed only some of the skin removed. Also, the so-called "lab results" could have been wrong. I can't imagine lab results being wrong, though. Regardless, the surgeon had no right to remove the man's penis without the man's consent. I hope the patient wins the case.

[speedvogel (imported)]

First off, the "cancer" the man supposedly had was a form of skin cancer. When was the last time you heard of someone have skin cancer on their penis?! Second, even if he did have it, you remove the skin to get rid of skin cancer, not the entire organ! Third, skin cancer is NOT fatal.

So basically, this idiot doctor did unnecessary surgery without the patient's consent. That is a violation of the patient's rights and of the law. The patient did NOT need his penis removed. He needed only some of the skin removed. Also, the so-called "lab results" could have been wrong. I can't imagine lab results being wrong, though. Regardless, the surgeon had no right to remove the man's penis without the man's consent. I hope the patient wins the case.

Unfortunately the consent form used at virtually all hospitals is so broad that if you go in for a tonsillectomy, and the doctor amputates your legs, he can claim you authorized this. This is not right and many courts have held over the years that this is not informed consent.

Second, if, in fact, the penile cancer was a minor lesion, the treatment of choice is laser surgery to remove only the lesion. This is then followed closely for about a year and reconstructive surgery is then performed. For the rest of the patient's life he will need regular exams to check for additional cancers.

Third point, Even if the lesion was a major cancer which had penetrated deep into the penis, there is absolutely no reason to not have sutured the patient up, gotten him totally awake, done the pathology work, and informed him of what his condition was. At that point, he could make an informed consent.

Penile cancer is so rare in the U.S. that very few urologists have encountered a case. This is because two conditions must be present to cause it. First the victim must be uncircumcised. Until the last 20 years or so, this was very rare in the U.S. Second, the victim must be very casual in his sanitary habits. While we are not as obsessed with soap and water as are some people, by world standards Americans are very clean people.

Anyway, my opinion is this doctor's ass is grass and the patient has a huge gang mower. The doctor should lose the suit (his group has settled, the hospital has settled, his insurance tried to force him to settle). He also should lose his remaining medical license. He was licensed to practice in Indiana and Ohio in addition to Kentucky. He has voluntarily surrendered licenses in the first named states.

Speed

[Paolo]

Skin cancer can indeed be fatal.

Please don't make such sweeping generalizations.

[SplitDik (imported)]

Skin cancer can indeed be fatal.

Please don't make such sweeping generalizations.

Whether or not it is "fatal" (it obviously can kill you) it did not constitute an emergency or life-and-death situation in the moment. So I don't think it can really be called life threatening allowing amputation without explicit consent -- at least I hope that is what is found in the case. Furthermore, it is not clear that this doctor was the expert or was the only treatment option. The patient should have the option to choose the doctor and procedure.