SHELBYVILLE, Ky. – Opening arguments will be heard Monday in the civil trial of a Kentucky man who is suing a surgeon who amputated his penis four years ago.
New Policy in New YorkNew Policy in New YorkAug 2011: Drivers with no DUIs may qualify for $9 a week car insuranceBrooklyn Mom is 52, Looks 30 Again!Brooklyn Mom is 52, Looks 30 Again!Her clever $3 Wrinkle Therapy Angers Botox Doctors. We reveal how.Florida Tech MBA, No GMAT Florida Tech MBA, No GMAT Earn Your MBA 100% Online. No GMAT Needed. Get More Info & Apply!Ads by Yabuka
Quantcast

A jury was swiftly seated in a Shelbyville courtroom Thursday in the lawsuit filed by Phillip Seaton of nearby Waddy, and his wife, Deborah.

They sued Dr. John Patterson of Louisville in 2008 for unspecified damages stemming from "loss of service, love and affection" after the surgeon removed Phillip Seaton's penis during what the plaintiffs say was supposed to have been a circumcision to treat inflammation.

Patterson maintains the amputation was necessary because he found cancer during the surgery.

Seaton, sporting a long ponytail and gray beard, was seated at a table in the front of the courtroom alongside his attorney during jury selection.

Shelby County Circuit Judge Charles Hickman instructed the jury not to discuss the case, and said the trial will begin Monday.

Lawyers would not comment on the case because of Hickman's instruction to refrain from making public statements.

Kevin George, attorney for the Seatons, said in a 2008 Associated Press interview that the situation was not an emergency and, "It didn't have to happen that way."

Clay Robinson, Patterson's attorney, has previously said the urologist had permission to perform any medical procedure deemed necessary. Robinson has said that Patterson "had no reasonable option" but to remove the cancer.

"Mr. Seaton's problem was not the surgery, it was the cancer," Robinson said in 2008.

The Seatons also sued Jewish Hospital, where the surgery took place. The hospital settled for an undisclosed amount.

Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/08/18/1764847/ky-jury-selected-in-penis-amputation.html?storylink=fb#ixzz1W3qQXdGQ

I would be pretty put out too if I woke up from what I was probably told was a routine procedure without my dick.

The doctor should have woken him up and explained the situation and allowed him to make his own decision whether to remove it or not.

Back about '97 when I had a surgical procedure I remember the doctor saying if he saw anything else amiss he was granted the right to deal with it at the same time. But a wayward internal organ &.....that is a big difference. The guy should have been given the choice. Certainly the right to seek a second opinion.

*shudders* I can't imagine. Yeah, dude should've given him the okay to remove his dick. I mean, it's not like it's an organ that can be donated, like a kidney or heart. And how did the doctor automatically know it was cancer during the surgery? Shouldn't they have ran test to be sure?

ITA that he should have let the guy wake up, then explained the situation to him.

Nystyle709 wrote:

*shudders* I can't imagine. Yeah, dude should've given him the okay to remove his dick. I mean, it's not like it's an organ that can be donated, like a kidney or heart. And how did the doctor automatically know it was cancer during the surgery? Shouldn't they have ran test to be sure?

Surgeons send tissue to the hospital pathology lab all the time for a determination while the patient is still on the table. I assumed this one did as well. If he didn't...he loses the lawsuit. Too bad in a way because if it was cancer he most likely saved the patient's life.