Surgeon Amputates Man's Penis Without Consent

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Narmerguy

Full Member
Moderator Emeritus
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
6,874
Reaction score
1,359
Points
5,316
Phillip Seaton went to the hospital in October 2007 for a routine circumcision to treat inflammation but left the operating room without a penis.

Seaton sued his surgeon, Dr. John Patterson, for removing his penis without his permission, and the trial got under way Monday in Shelby County (Kentucky) Circuit Court. Seaton and his wife, Deborah, seek damages for "loss of service, love and affection."

Seaton's lawyer, Kevin George, told jurors that Seaton "doesn't feel like a man" without his penis, The Associate Press reported.

But Patterson said he found cancer while performing the routine circumcision, and Patterson's defense attorney, Clay Robinson, said the surgeon had no other options but to remove the penis immediately, according to court documents.

The tip of Seaton's penis "had the appearance of rotten cauliflower" because it was so inundated with cancer, Robinson told the courtroom, according to the AP.

Judge Charles Hickman instructed both lawyers to refrain from commenting on the case because it is ongoing.

Despite the alleged seriousness of Seaton's penile cancer, experts contacted by ABCNews.com said that the doctor needed consent from the patient before surgically removing his sex organ.

"I think the doctor made a big mistake, and will not win the case," said Dr. David Crawford, a professor of surgery at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.

Partial penectomy, or a partial removal of the penis, Mohs surgery, a precise surgery used to remove several types of skin cancer, laser and radiation therapies were all options when treating penile cancer, said Crawford.

Because the surgeon had said the cancer was so severe, Robinson told the courtroom that Patterson could treat it only by surgically removing the organ.

Nevertheless, "a surgical consent is needed to do this," said Dr. Glenn Bubley, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. "This is the standard of care. There would be no reason to breach standard of care in this case."

Seaton also sued Louisville's Jewish Hospital, where the surgery was performed. The hospital settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

While Bubley said that the only curative option for some penile cancer cases was to remove the penis, "he needed to [give consent]. ... Patients have the right to say no to even curative treatment. That's why the hospital settled."

That's too bad that the doctor was trying to do the right thing but I definitely agree that you can't do a procedure like that without getting consent first. That's just too much.


EDIT: Many thanks. A verdict has been reached:

 
Last edited:
I think I lost it when I read that the whole thing went down at a Jewish hospital. :laugh:

Honestly though, it wasn't a immediate life-threatening emergency therefore consent should have been obtained. The doctor failed pretty hard (no pun)!
 
How do you not feel the growth if it's as bad as the surgeon says it was...or notice it when you clean under the foreskin...

This is ridiculous. Definitely should've consented, but if it's as bad as he says...
 
Here's a better question: why didn't the doctor take the time to actually look at the surgical site in the office, or pre-op while the patient was still awake? 20 seconds of basic physical exam skills would have prevented this.
 
Last edited:
Here's a better question: why didn't the doctor take the time to actually look at the surgical sight in the office, or pre-op while the patient was still awake? 20 seconds of basic physical exam skills would have prevented this.

Becuase the guy went in for a circumcision, pretty simple surgery.
 
Here's a better question: why didn't the doctor take the time to actually look at the surgical sight in the office, or pre-op while the patient was still awake? 20 seconds of basic physical exam skills would have prevented this.

Same thing I was wondering. Shouldn't he have known before the op that it looked funny and might need some further examination/testing?
 
It's not an emergency so consent is needed.
 
Definitely agree that consent should have been obtained, regardless of the severity of the conditions. I know I would have liked to be warned prior to the procedure, if anything to say "Hell yeah, in your face cancer!"
 
"I have no other choice than to remove your penis."
 
It doesn't sound like this was enough of an emergency to get away with no consent. Doc should have let him wake up, then explained the situation. What an awful situation all around, though.
 
I think I lost it when I read that the whole thing went down at a Jewish hospital. :laugh:

Honestly though, it wasn't a immediate life-threatening emergency therefore consent should have been obtained. The doctor failed pretty hard (no pun)!

Hahahaha same! :laugh:
 
I just read this story, and it said very clearly that he signed the consent form. It said that the doctor could do whatever he needed to do during surgery. The guy was illiterate tho, so he didn't know what he signed. Regardless, he DID consent to surgery, and regardless of how much this sucks for the guy, there's really no blame to put on the doctors or anyone else. It's the guys fault for signing something without knowing what it said.
 
I just read this story, and it said very clearly that he signed the consent form. It said that the doctor could do whatever he needed to do during surgery. The guy was illiterate tho, so he didn't know what he signed. Regardless, he DID consent to surgery, and regardless of how much this sucks for the guy, there's really no blame to put on the doctors or anyone else. It's the guys fault for signing something without knowing what it said.


The guy signed the consent form for circumcision, not amputation of the penis.
 
I just read this story, and it said very clearly that he signed the consent form. It said that the doctor could do whatever he needed to do during surgery. The guy was illiterate tho, so he didn't know what he signed. Regardless, he DID consent to surgery, and regardless of how much this sucks for the guy, there's really no blame to put on the doctors or anyone else. It's the guys fault for signing something without knowing what it said.

"there are always alternatives to immediately chopping off a penis"
- hippocrates
 
There's like 15 posts in this thread right now, and only one poster can manage to find any comedy in this situation?

Well it's pretty hard to laugh when you're the one who doesn't have a penis anymore
 
How many of you think that the wife is happier now? :meanie:

She doesn't have to fake a headache and she has all the money in the world to shop until she drops.
 
I just read this story, and it said very clearly that he signed the consent form. It said that the doctor could do whatever he needed to do during surgery. The guy was illiterate tho, so he didn't know what he signed. Regardless, he DID consent to surgery, and regardless of how much this sucks for the guy, there's really no blame to put on the doctors or anyone else. It's the guys fault for signing something without knowing what it said.

Pretty sure consent is rarely for "whatever needs to be done" and that it has to be for specific purpose.. with explicit (or STRONGLY implicit) consent from the patient for that purpose alone.
 
Come on now; you can't criticize newbies for not using the search function if you didn't do it yourself. There have been a number of threads about this already, including this one.
 
I just read this story, and it said very clearly that he signed the consent form. It said that the doctor could do whatever he needed to do during surgery. The guy was illiterate tho, so he didn't know what he signed. Regardless, he DID consent to surgery, and regardless of how much this sucks for the guy, there's really no blame to put on the doctors or anyone else. It's the guys fault for signing something without knowing what it said.

The surgeon failed the basic ethics of medicine and the concept of due process. You need to provide the patient with information about exactly what you are going to do as a surgeon. Cutting off a penis was never in the mind of the patient, and it happened without his consent. Ergo, the surgeon is at fault. If the guy was illiterate, then that was even more reason to make sure the patient understood. The surgeon failed basic ethics and deserves to be ripped a new one. SUCH POOR CLINICAL PRACTICE.
 
I just read this story, and it said very clearly that he signed the consent form. It said that the doctor could do whatever he needed to do during surgery. The guy was illiterate tho, so he didn't know what he signed. Regardless, he DID consent to surgery, and regardless of how much this sucks for the guy, there's really no blame to put on the doctors or anyone else. It's the guys fault for signing something without knowing what it said.

On second thought, after reading what you wrote, Are you out of your mind? and you want to be a doctor? You would be better off becoming a lawyer, because thats a legal argument youre proposing.
 
How many of you think that the wife is happier now? :meanie:

She doesn't have to fake a headache and she has all the money in the world to shop until she drops.

haha damn thats messed up
 
All kidding aside, i have to agree with AZfuturedoc...Most surgical consents have a general statement that says something to the effect of " should the surgeon find something that needs to be taken care of while he's operating, i give him permission to use his judgement to do so." You don't have to sign that part but if the guy signed the guy signed. If there is a legal argument for the patient, it would be that the physician should have examined the patient pre-op (as someone said) and thus did not exercise judgement that would be expected.
On a lighter note, if I were a guy (which I'm not) and had a penis growing a cauliflower type lesion, I'd be sufficiently freaked out to get help, real help, and not some random surgeon. I mean, seriously. And being in medicine now, it's not the first time I've seen this- people with massive tumors that they ignore, breast ca's eating their way out of a breast...it's really shocking. i know getting a diagnosis of cancer is scary but it's scarier to find out you waited too long for anything to be done.
 
I just read this story, and it said very clearly that he signed the consent form. It said that the doctor could do whatever he needed to do during surgery. The guy was illiterate tho, so he didn't know what he signed. Regardless, he DID consent to surgery, and regardless of how much this sucks for the guy, there's really no blame to put on the doctors or anyone else. It's the guys fault for signing something without knowing what it said.
NEEDED. You don't need to remove cancer in most situations, and this is not one of them.
 
All kidding aside, i have to agree with AZfuturedoc...Most surgical consents have a general statement that says something to the effect of " should the surgeon find something that needs to be taken care of while he's operating, i give him permission to use his judgement to do so." You don't have to sign that part but if the guy signed the guy signed. If there is a legal argument for the patient, it would be that the physician should have examined the patient pre-op (as someone said) and thus did not exercise judgement that would be expected.
On a lighter note, if I were a guy (which I'm not) and had a penis growing a cauliflower type lesion, I'd be sufficiently freaked out to get help, real help, and not some random surgeon. I mean, seriously. And being in medicine now, it's not the first time I've seen this- people with massive tumors that they ignore, breast ca's eating their way out of a breast...it's really shocking. i know getting a diagnosis of cancer is scary but it's scarier to find out you waited too long for anything to be done.
It allows you to do something that is medically indicated and necessary at the time of the operation. This was possibly indicated, but not at all necessary. This one sounds like malpractice, up and down.
 
*checks posting date*

WTLW

*edit* post #25
 
I just read this story, and it said very clearly that he signed the consent form. It said that the doctor could do whatever he needed to do during surgery. The guy was illiterate tho, so he didn't know what he signed. Regardless, he DID consent to surgery, and regardless of how much this sucks for the guy, there's really no blame to put on the doctors or anyone else. It's the guys fault for signing something without knowing what it said.

We don't just require consent, we require INFORMED consent. If this patient did not understand what he signed, then that is a lapse on the physician's part and he is certainly liable.
 
According to some news reports, the surgeon claims that he removed the tip of the penis because he couldn't insert a catheter and was worried that urinary retention would damage the kidneys. Does this change anyone's view? Does the amputation seem necessary?
 
According to some news reports, the surgeon claims that he removed the tip of the penis because he couldn't insert a catheter and was worried that urinary retention would damage the kidneys. Does this change anyone's view? Does the amputation seem necessary?

No, you can always do a suprapubic cath.
 
I am not a surgeon, but the penis should have also removed in a way that they can reattach later if needs to.
 
All kidding aside, i have to agree with AZfuturedoc...Most surgical consents have a general statement that says something to the effect of " should the surgeon find something that needs to be taken care of while he's operating, i give him permission to use his judgement to do so." You don't have to sign that part but if the guy signed the guy signed. If there is a legal argument for the patient, it would be that the physician should have examined the patient pre-op (as someone said) and thus did not exercise judgement that would be expected.
On a lighter note, if I were a guy (which I'm not) and had a penis growing a cauliflower type lesion, I'd be sufficiently freaked out to get help, real help, and not some random surgeon. I mean, seriously. And being in medicine now, it's not the first time I've seen this- people with massive tumors that they ignore, breast ca's eating their way out of a breast...it's really shocking. i know getting a diagnosis of cancer is scary but it's scarier to find out you waited too long for anything to be done.

this is a rather flaccid argument.
 
I seriously think something more sinister was likely going on in the mind of the doc.

I mean, how could you really think that it is necessary to perform an emergent penis amputation.

How many times in medical training is INFORMED CONSENT reiterated? He must of known he was crossing the line.
 
I am not a surgeon, but the penis should have also removed in a way that they can reattach later if needs to.
That doesn't make any sense. If you're removing something for cancer, you'd send it for pathology, which means preservation in formalin. Plus, why would you re-attach something with cancer?

Bridges are going to be burned, which is why you need to talk about this in advance.
 
My reaction:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
 
Not if you didn't consent them for it you can't...

I guess I don't have experience to know what the standard of care is in acute urinary retention when a foley or straight cath can't be placed, but my guess would be that it's not penectomy.
 
Honestly though, it wasn't a immediate life-threatening emergency therefore consent should have been obtained.
12.lona.gif
 
There's like 15 posts in this thread right now, and only one poster can manage to find any comedy in this situation?

I was laughing by the first sentence

"Phillip Seaton went to the hospital in October 2007 for a routine circumcision to treat inflammation but left the operating room without a penis"

That's Pulitzer Prize winning journalism right there.

this is a rather flaccid argument.

👍
 
That doesn't make any sense. If you're removing something for cancer, you'd send it for pathology, which means preservation in formalin. Plus, why would you re-attach something with cancer?

Bridges are going to be burned, which is why you need to talk about this in advance.


Biopsy is based on a sample of cells - not the entire organ.

Plus, this surgeon can never be sure if its malignant or benign from just looking at it. He should have amputated after the biopsy results.
 
I think the argument was cut rather abruptly short.
 
Top Bottom