Kentucky Jury Sides with Doctor In Penis Amputation Malpractice Claim

By | August 26, 2011

  • August 26, 2011 at 12:08 pm
    SmartBlondie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The doctor is negligent – not because he removed the cancer without asking, but how on earth could he perform a circumcision without first examining the area carefully, and properly prepping the area for surgery. If he was prepped correctly, the prep nurse would have noticed it. Also,a few hours would not have made a life or death difference. The man should have been woken up, given 24 hours to process the situation, then anesthetised again. He would have been fine. I think the jury is wrong.

    • August 27, 2011 at 6:18 pm
      Bambi says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Where did you get your medical information “SmartBlondie”? How could the “prep nurse” have noticed the cancer when it was not seen by the doctor until the skin was incised?

    • August 27, 2011 at 10:55 pm
      Yogi says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      often men this age get circumcisions because they have phimosis, which means you cannot retract the foreskin. This makes the glans penis only visible after incising the foreskin. In addition, this man had multiple underlying medical problems which make him a big risk under anesthesia, would you be willing to risk it again. If he died under anesthesia from a difficult to control airway as a result of his obesity and sleep apnea who would you hold responsible for that?

  • August 26, 2011 at 12:36 pm
    FredZilch says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If the doc hadn’t excised the cancerous lesion, the fool would have sued for negligence. This case illustrated the losing proposition the medical profession has become. After 27 years of practicing, I would never encourage a child to pursue a career in medicine.

  • August 26, 2011 at 1:48 pm
    Jester says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This clown is 64 years old and has no use for the thing anyway. What kind of idiot has this procedure done this late in life? The surgeon wouldn’t have been able to diagnose the cancer visually and probably discovered it when the cut was made. Sounds like a nuisance claim to me.

    • August 27, 2011 at 6:22 pm
      Bambi says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      and just why does a “clown” of 64 have no use for the THING?

  • August 26, 2011 at 1:49 pm
    Gilburt Gotfried says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Neighbors commented that Seaton was a real jerk before the surgery, but after the surgery he seemed to be only half the d*ck that he was.

    • August 26, 2011 at 7:59 pm
      Makes a good story says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      This article makes a good short story

    • August 29, 2011 at 11:33 am
      walkerse1 says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      That’s cold man! Funny, but cold!

  • August 26, 2011 at 1:55 pm
    Mominator says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    @FredZilch- apparently you still have your penis, right?
    As a former urology nurse, I can only give my deepest sympathy for this man’s loss. Our surgeons NEVER would have amputated, EVEN if they felt it was necessary without first speaking to the patient and offering treatment options. It’s so sad that as surgeon in this day and age would commit this type of crime knowingly. It happens all the time, however, and older people simply accept their fate. To those of you who are not familiar with the outcome, it’s not just simply amputated. This man now faces a lifetime of possible and probable effects of this surgery, ranging from infection to urethral stricture and incontinence. He did the right thing by suing.

    • August 27, 2011 at 11:00 pm
      Yogi says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I agree that there are several ethical issues here, but calling this a “crime” really diminishes the sense of that word.

    • October 10, 2011 at 3:10 pm
      ECS says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Excuse me there was FURTHER amputation later. It seem likely that was necessary as it was not claimed d to be due to the original excision. Nothing but the actual excision was claimed as damages.

  • August 26, 2011 at 1:58 pm
    Magnet Healing Biomagnetism says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    After 20 years with a prostate cancer diagnosis, within 14 days I helped a person heal from it applying Biomagnetism, a system discovered by Dr. Isaac Goiz – his doctor very surprised! Because of the bogus information we have about cancer, the jurors made the wrong decision that the “cure” is in amputation – that couldn’t be further from the truth! The doctor in this castration did the patient no service – this is utterly appaling. The human organism is not a system of parts, it’s an interconnected system that should be addressed this way…only time will show that his disease was not cured and will manifest itself as other health issues!

    • August 26, 2011 at 2:34 pm
      J.S. says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      @ Magnet Healing Biomagnetism – You are a danger to society.

  • August 26, 2011 at 2:02 pm
    Snip-snip says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    He should have purchased a PPP (Penis Protection Plan):0 On the up side, his wife does not have to use the old “I have a headache” excuse anymore!

  • August 26, 2011 at 2:59 pm
    Hank says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Snip,
    I disliked your comment not because it was inappropriate, but because it wasn’t even close to being funny. This subject is an easy one to make jokes about, but yours was horrible. Please don’t comment on IJ articles again.

  • August 26, 2011 at 5:08 pm
    Jon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t know what’s more disappointing: the lack of liability/negligence comprehension, or the demeaning commentary.

    The doctor was clearly negligent in his actions, if not necessarily grossly so. The diagnosis was “potentially deadly cancer.” The grounds for deviating from the operation to be performed are risks that fall under “potential imminent death.”

    Even stage 4 cancer is not “imminent death.” Staph infections, blocked arteries and internal hemorrhaging are potentially indicators of “imminent death.” Cancer? Not so much.

    And is there really a need to call this guy “clown” and “fool?” We don’t know his history, social/economic background or anything about him other that what is presented in the article. I guess it’s easier to judge others from a position of superior socio/economic/educational status…

    Wait, I thought all that privelige was supposed to enable us to be wiser and more compassionate?

    I *do* think the $16 million suit amount was ridiculous. But lets be honest–that’s probably more a responsibility to place upon the head of the attorney than the victims…

  • August 26, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    southern adjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What caught my attention is the fact he has a fifth grade education with limited reading and writing skills, thus he did not know what he was signing when he signed the consent. This is a commercial truck driver that claims he can only write his name and recognize small words…If that’s true…how do you pass a CDL test, complete paperwork on your loads, read street signs, etc? Maybe the jury had a credibility issue with this man.

    I agree with FredZilch…damned if you do…damned if you don’t.

    • August 26, 2011 at 10:15 pm
      Jon says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      You’re making an erroneous assumption that the consent was not verbally explained to him beforehand. The article does not go into detail about that.

      There are (sadly) plenty of commercial drivers out there who are probably just as functionally illiterate, if not more so.

      Unfortunately, we’ll never know if FredZilch is right or not. He didn’t get the opportunity to decide before the procedure was done.

  • August 27, 2011 at 12:55 am
    Chad R says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yet another reason NOT to circumcise — you might lose the whole thing! This occasionally happens to babies that are circumcised too. In addition to 200 infant circumcision deaths every year in the United States alone.

    Circumcision; nothing but bad news.

    • August 29, 2011 at 10:17 am
      Little Frog says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      There’s a reason this has been a common procedure with infants for thousands of years. I’m glad my parents chose when they did.

      • August 29, 2011 at 12:55 pm
        Chad R says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Myths and religion are used as excuses. And circumcision has only ever been common among a minority – mostly Muslims and Jews. Circumcision spread in America due to myths (which I will not repeat here.) The majority of men worldwide, about 85%, are intact (not circumcised) and these numbers are increasing. More and more American parents are choosing to keep their sons intact — 67.5% in 2009.

  • August 27, 2011 at 7:52 am
    Chad Rivera, Esq. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yet another reason to NOT circumcise — they might cut the whole thing off! This happens occasionally to babies too. An estimated 200 baby boys die every year due to complications of circumcision. Keep your baby intact, and don’t worry about him dying or getting his penis amputated. Circumcision; nothing but BAD NEWS.

  • August 29, 2011 at 9:19 am
    Penny says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The operating doctor should have consulted with the patient before proceeding to an unauthorized procedure. The patient had a right to decide if he wanted it removed or if he was to live with the cancer. i don’t know if the patient would’ve then sued for negligence later on, but doctors should stop playing GOD, and inform their patients about what other steps are necesary in their healthcare and not take matters into their own hands.

  • August 29, 2011 at 11:27 am
    It was only an inch!!! says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Geez, the Dr. took off an inch. And since then he had the rest removed. Obviously the first Dr. took great care not to take off more than was neccessary and somewhere along the line, that was not enough because he had to go back and get more taken off.

    I know some guys can’t really afford an inch, but its better than looking up at the lid of a pine box!!!

    • August 29, 2011 at 1:46 pm
      Give 'em an inch says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Give ’em an inch & they take a mile? Aw, sorry people, couldn’t resist!

  • August 29, 2011 at 2:00 pm
    dantheman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Cauliflower anyone?

  • August 29, 2011 at 4:13 pm
    Kevin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “A Kentucky truck driver who was wheeled into surgery for a simple circumcision but awoke without part of his penis…”

    Wasn’t that the point of the operation?

    Yeah, yeah, I know what the story is, but that’s some pretty ironic writing.

  • October 10, 2011 at 3:07 pm
    ECS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How scary that neither this man nor his wife noticed there was a slight problem! I don’t suppose doctors ask to see the glans on examination for symptoms but I think that needs to change.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*