Friday, September 26, 2008

HOLY SHIT!!! Guys, read at your own risk...


Ky. man claims penis amputated without consent
By BRETT BARROUQUERE, Associated Press Writer
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - 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.
I couldn't find an appropriate image (i.e. one that didn't make light of this man's suffering, or wouldn't make you guys even more uneasy) so I opted to use one that is within the subject matter and also demonstrates my feelings on circumcision in general...

3 comments:

Mike Church said...

Aside from it's religious significance, there is no actual medical need for an infant to be circumsized. It's a pretty barbaric custom and I refused to put my now 10 year-old son through it when he was born. He'll thank me someday I'm sure.

Thanks for another knee-crossing blog...

Lisa_mynx said...

yes, exactly... archaic, barbaric and just plain cruel-- no one can tell me the child doesn't suffer, and think of the sexual pleasure it robs him of the rest of his life...

joe bloke said...

i love my foreskin.