Kor37 9 Posted September 27, 2008 Man Sues Doctor for Amputating Penis By BRETT BARROUQUERE LOUISVILLE, Ky. (Sept. 26) - A Kentucky man who claims his penis was removed without his consent during what was supposed to be a circumcision has sued the doctor who performed the surgery. Phillip Seaton, 61, and his wife are seeking unspecified compensation from Dr. John M. Patterson and the medical practice that performed the circumcision for "loss of service, love and affection." The Seatons also are seeking unspecified punitive damages from Patterson and the medical practice, Commonwealth Urology. A woman who answered the phone at Commonwealth Urology would not take a message for the doctor Thursday. But the Seaton's attorney said the doctor's post-surgical notes show the doctor thought he detected cancer and removed the penis. Attorney Kevin George said a later test did detect cancer. "It was not an emergency," George told The Associated Press on Thursday. "It didn't have to happen that way." Seaton was having the procedure on Oct. 19, 2007, to better treat inflammation. The lawsuit filed earlier this month in state court claims Patterson removed Seaton's penis without consulting either Phillip or Deborah Seaton, or giving them an opportunity to seek a second opinion. The couple also sued the anesthesiologist, Dr. Oliver James of Shelbyville, claiming he used a general anesthesia even though Seaton asked that it not be administered. A message left at Commonwealth Urology's corporate office in Lexington was not immediately returned Thursday. A message left for James also was not immediately returned. The Seatons' suit is similar to one in which an Indianapolis man was awarded more than $2.3 million in damages after he claimed his penis and left testicle were removed without his consent during surgery for an infection in 1997. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RikerChick 5 Posted September 28, 2008 Uh yeah, I'd sue too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Takara_Soong 4 Posted September 28, 2008 At least the doctor was right about there being cancer. Bad enough as this was, can you imagine how much worse if he'd been wrong about that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gabri 0 Posted September 28, 2008 Did the doctor think he wouldn't get sued after that? What about the surgical team? No one could be bothered to pipe up, "Hey, when it's not a life-threatening situation, we kind of need to get a patient's permission for amputation of anything"??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Theunicornhunter 2 Posted September 28, 2008 If I had to guess - I'd guess the doctor thought he had permission - that the consent forms allowed removal of cancerous items discovered during surgery or something like that. Otherwise, the doctor is a real quack. I'm also guessing there must have been a medical reason that the man was getting circumcised at age 61 so finding cancer wasn't unexpected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhaseSniper 0 Posted September 28, 2008 Is that actually true? It sounds like something from the Onion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethlehem 7 Posted September 28, 2008 True or not it gives one reason to think about what could happen in a surgery. Need to make sure no matter what there are no suprises. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TJ Phaserman 2 Posted September 28, 2008 i wouldn't want to imagine that happening to me....it's too painful to even think about.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhaseSniper 0 Posted September 28, 2008 i wouldn't want to imagine that happening to me....it's too painful to even think about.... Indeed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites