Court upholds decision in penis amputation case
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.
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.
Clay Robinson, the Lexington-based attorney for Patterson, and Kevin George of Louisville, the attorney for Seaton, did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
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.
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.
Clay Robinson, the Lexington-based attorney for Patterson, and Kevin George of Louisville, the attorney for Seaton, did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
I can imagine that guy screamed bloody murder for having part or all of his thing cut off to remove the cancer. My ex wife's uncle died rather than have a prostrate procedure that might left him limp rather than saving his life with a simple operation. Some guys would rather die than be deprived of the use of it. Others say "so what" and move on. I have spinal damage and no use of my "thing" any more. Just love the diapers now (sic).
If the doctor hadn't removed the tumor and the guy got worse or died the doc would have been sued. This was a no win situation.
ok, i wanna know.. is a Penis technically an appendage, or an actual Organ? Â they refer to it as an Organ.. but its covered in skin, which is an organ.. is it an organ within an organ ?Â
My mom had fatal cancer and chose not to proceed with surgeries that would have left her deformed. She chose, rather, to stay home with loved ones and enjoy her life for the time she had left. I disagree with this ruling.
didn't sound like a hard decision from a medical standpoint.
WOW the Dr. could have saved this mans life and this is what he gets. just wow. I had a suspisous (spelling) mole on my belly and the Dr. said if he thought it was cancer or even had the chance I would not be leaving the clinic until it was removed. THANKFULLY it is just a normal old mole. Sometimes medical descions need to be made right then and there, it can't wait, it sounds like this was the case.Â
This guy seems like a d*ck. Â Sure the doctor took more than you were expecting, but he also might have given you many more years of life. Â
If there was such a large cancer on the tip of his penis, how did him and his wife--?? I need some mind soap. Yuck.
 @chandler I hear ya, man...urgh...
If he had left it and told the wife it was cancer, I'll bet there wouldn't have been any more ----!
You know, I really feel for this guy and I understand each person would feel differently - especially with a rather important appendage involved! And I am not even a guy and I'd feel awful if I had one to cut off! But I am rather addicted to living...and if it was a life-saving measure that needed to be done on the spot, then yeah; do it. They do it with legs, hands, feet, etc. all the time when time is of the essence. I do feel bad for him, but it is what it is.Â