Kentucky Court Upholds Decision in Penis Removal Case

[bobover3 (imported)]

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/20402280/k ... z2FhVQO698

By BRETT BARROUQUERE

Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) - A Kentucky man lost his bid Friday to force a doctor to pay damages for removing a cancer-riddled section of his penis during what was scheduled to be a simple circumcision.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals found that a jury correctly concluded that 66-year-old Phillip Seaton of Waddy consented to allow Dr. John Patterson to perform any procedure deemed necessary during the Oct. 19, 2007, surgery.

Patterson, a Kentucky-based urologist, maintains he found cancer in the man's penis during surgery and that it had to be removed. The patient claims the surgery was supposed to be a circumcision and he never authorized the amputation, nor was he given a chance to seek a second opinion.

"Additionally, there is uncontroverted testimony in the record that if Mr. Seaton were not treated for the penile cancer, it would prove fatal in the future," Judge Janet Stumbo wrote for the court.

Judge Michael Caperton dissented, but did not issue a written opinion.

Clay Robinson, a Lexington-based attorney for Patterson, said the opinion was "very well-reasoned" and fact-based.

"You always appreciate when you see judges at any level go into that amount of detail," Robinson said.

Seaton and his wife, Deborah, sued Patterson, a Kentucky-based urologist, in Shelby County Circuit Court in 2008. Seaton, now in his 60s, was having the procedure to better treat inflammation. The Seatons also sued Jewish Hospital, where the surgery took place. The hospital settled with the couple for an undisclosed amount.

Both sides agree that Seaton had squamous cell carcinoma, a type of skin cancer, in his penis. Patterson concluded that a tumor had overtaken much of the top of the organ, which made it impossible to insert a catheter.

"He also opined that serious complications and additional surgery could result if he did not insert the catheter," Stumbo wrote.

The main point of contention is whether Patterson acted reasonably in removing the organ immediately or if amputation could have been delayed to let Seaton seek other medical options.

Stumbo and Judge Donna Dixon concluded that, even though Seaton had limited ability to read and write, he never informed the doctor of that fact and signed the consent form in the presence of a witness. The Seatons claimed that the waiver didn't give Patterson authority to conduct an amputation without further consent.

"They maintain that no harm would have resulted if Dr. Patterson has consulted with either of them before proceeding, or if he had allowed them to consult with another physician to get a second opinion or other treatment options," Stumbo wrote.

Stumbo wrote that Patterson acted properly because the tumor had consumed such a large section of the organ.

"For this reason alone, the resection of the tumor was 'necessary and proper' in the context of inserting a catheter," Stumbo wrote.

Kevin George of Louisville, the attorney for Seaton, did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

Read more: http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/20402280/k ... z2FlE8QWR5

Follow us: @myfoxdc on Twitter | myfoxdc on Facebook

[cheetaking243 (imported)]

God, this sounds almost exactly like the court case at the beginning of "The Incredibles." Here's what the script would be if the doctor replaced Mr. Incredible:

Newsreel Narration: "In a stunning turn of events, a doctor is being sued for saving someone who apparently didn't want to be saved..."

Lawyer: "My client didn't ask to be saved, my client didn't want to be saved. And the injury received from the doctor's "actions," so-called, causes him daily pain."

Doctor: "Hey! I saved your life!"

Patient: "You didn't save my life, you ruined my death, that's what you did!"

I know I'm biased, because I really wouldn't give a damn if I lost my penis like this, and I know to most guys that stupid thing is the most important thing in the world, but seriously... that doctor just saved your life, and saved you thousands of dollars by getting rid of the tumor while you were already under the knife. It was probably going to have to come off anyway, so what's the big deal?

[bobover3 (imported)]

There's a chance to make a lot of money suing. That's why. The story says the guy received an undisclosed settlement. This is part of the reason medical care is so expensive. You and I have to chip in.

[Losethem (imported)]

On the other hand you have big medical business - I've been put in situations where I cannot treat and care for my patients adequately because at the end it's all about the bottom line. It's part of what makes me want to leave the medical field - I often feel like I'm warehousing people for money and not caring for them. Sad really, and I'm about to the point that I cannot continue to do this for my own sanity.

--LT

[bobover3 (imported)]

Scary to hear you admit that. Most people have known about it for years. What will happen to patient care when a ceiling is put on medical expenses, and care begins to be rationed? Many are already worrying.

[curious_guy (imported)]

Scary to hear you admit that. Most people have known about it for years. What will happen to patient care when a ceiling is put on medical expenses, and care begins to be rationed? Many are already worrying.

Health care has ALWAYS been rationed unless you are very wealthy or very lucky. I think that most private health insurance policies have had lifetime limits for decades. They also have limits on what treatments they cover.

[cheetaking243 (imported)]

If you ask me, profit and health care should NEVER exist together. One does its best work when it does as little as possible and thus saves money, the other does its best work when it spares no expense to save the other person's life. How they ever got together in this country is beyond me. Business and medicine are about as opposite principle-wise as you can possibly imagine.

[bobover3 (imported)]

Curious_Guy, most private health insurance, which includes employer-provided, has a lifetime limit only on out of network care, and many do not have that. There are also some treatment limits, but this is equally true of Medicare, Medicaid, and the new Obamacare. In all forms of insurance, not just medical, there's no such thing as unlimited liability because no insurer has unlimited resources.

[bobover3 (imported)]

Cheetaking243, I just sent you a PM about this topic. I'm using a PM because my message might be construed by some as political.

[hazbalz (imported)]

Not knowing the particulars to this case, the question I have is if the doctor examined him why were no biopsies performed prior to the surgery? The article says the tumor took over the top of the penis making

it impossible to insert a catheter.

That raises a very large red flag. The doctor recommended a circumcision to stop inflammation but didn't do any biopsies on a large tumor. Additionally, the doctor apparently didn't give his patient any type of worst case scenarios that would included amputation. Very unusual. I do find it interesting that the two judges who agreed with the doctor were both female. The one dissenting judge was male. Its a pity he didn't write his dissent, it would have been interesting to read his thoughts.