Skip to comments.
Penis Amputee Receives No Damages in Kentucky Trial
ABC News ^
| 8/24/11
| Mikaela Conley
Posted on 08/24/2011 9:51:24 PM PDT by Lmo56
A unanimous jury ruled in favor of the Kentucky doctor who amputated a portion of Phillip Seaton's penis during an October 2007 circumcision to treat inflammation.
The jury unanimously found that Dr. John Patterson exercised appropriate care when he removed a portion of Seaton's penis after finding cancer and ruled 10-2 against Seaton's claim that Patterson did not properly obtain consent to him before removing his penis.
"We feel the interest of justice has been served," Clay Robinson, Patterson's attorney, told ABC News.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Local News
KEYWORDS: amputation; cancer; hpv; lawsuit; napl; penilecancer; penis; phillipseaton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
I know what Phillip Seaton is sayin', "Hey Doc I got yer Justice ... er ... had your justice right here, baby" ...
1
posted on
08/24/2011 9:51:30 PM PDT
by
Lmo56
To: Lmo56
2
posted on
08/24/2011 9:57:02 PM PDT
by
null and void
(Day 943 of America's holiday from reality...)
To: null and void
The guy had penile cancer, according to the doctor, so amputation was necessary to save his life.
3
posted on
08/24/2011 9:59:36 PM PDT
by
Jonty30
To: null and void
I wonder how many male prospective jurors grabbed their junk reflexively during voire dire when they found out what the case was about ...
4
posted on
08/24/2011 9:59:40 PM PDT
by
Lmo56
(If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
To: null and void
What? All female jury?
This poor guy got the short end....
5
posted on
08/24/2011 10:00:19 PM PDT
by
unkus
(Silence Is Consent)
To: Jonty30
It might have been necessary - but I woulda loved to have been there when the Doc said, "The surgery was a success - but, unfortunately, your Leetle Friend did not survive" ...
6
posted on
08/24/2011 10:02:26 PM PDT
by
Lmo56
(If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
To: Lmo56
To: Lmo56
8
posted on
08/24/2011 10:08:16 PM PDT
by
unkus
(Silence Is Consent)
To: unkus
It’s so sad - that it’s funny ...
I understand that the guy is pissed [pardon the pun], but if his life was saved, I guess it was a small price to pay ...
9
posted on
08/24/2011 10:11:30 PM PDT
by
Lmo56
(If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
To: Lmo56
10
posted on
08/24/2011 10:15:24 PM PDT
by
unkus
(Silence Is Consent)
To: Lmo56
If anyone should have sued, it should have been his wife... ;-)
11
posted on
08/24/2011 10:17:07 PM PDT
by
mkleesma
(`Call to me, and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.')
To: Lmo56
It sound to me as though the guy thought that he was just getting a circumcision and as the operation proceeded, the cancer was discovered and removed before he woke up.
12
posted on
08/24/2011 10:21:31 PM PDT
by
Eva
To: Lmo56
Penis Amputee Receives No Damages Uhhh, I beg to differ...
13
posted on
08/24/2011 10:38:38 PM PDT
by
FromTheSidelines
("everything that deceives, also enchants" - Plato)
To: Eva
It sound to me as though the guy thought that he was just getting a circumcision and as the operation proceeded, the cancer was discovered and removed before he woke up. That's what I got out of it. Perhaps I'm the only one here who actually agrees with the plaintiff... I don't agree that he should have been awarded $16 million dollars but... The penile cancer was not immediately life threatening and the doctor had not recieved permission to operate on it. This poor man had no chance to make love to his wife one last time (or 20). His sex life is over... period. I think the doctor was out of bounds doing something so radical without permission.
14
posted on
08/24/2011 10:41:10 PM PDT
by
DCBurgess58
(In a Capitalist society, men exploit other men. In a Communist society it's exactly the opposite.)
To: DCBurgess58
That's what I got out of it. Perhaps I'm the only one here who actually agrees with the plaintiff... I don't agree that he should have been awarded $16 million dollars but... The penile cancer was not immediately life threatening and the doctor had not recieved permission to operate on it. This poor man had no chance to make love to his wife one last time (or 20). His sex life is over... period. I think the doctor was out of bounds doing something so radical without permission. The doctor had permission. From the article:
"Seaton signed a consent form for a routine circumcision. Within the signed forms, a disclaimer included language that recognized Patterson's right to perform any further surgery he deemed necessary if unforeseen conditions arose, Robinson said."
I would say that the discovery of cancer counts as an unforeseen circumstance.
15
posted on
08/24/2011 10:45:54 PM PDT
by
10thAmendmentGuy
("[Drug] crusaders cannot accept the fact that they are not God." -Thomas Sowell)
To: Lmo56
16
posted on
08/24/2011 10:48:58 PM PDT
by
stormer
To: Lmo56
One part of the article says only a "portion" was removed- the lump. Then without missing a beat, the reporter implies the entire thing was amputated.
Which is it? Couldn't the reporter make up his mind?
If it required a full amputation it was bound to be life-threatening. Then again, if it was a complete lop job, whatever will the poor guy think with now that his primary head is gone? And if it wasn't a complete amputation, but only the diseased portion that was removed, why imply the guy lost his stick-shift and is now an automatic?
17
posted on
08/24/2011 10:56:21 PM PDT
by
piasa
To: Lmo56
He needed a better lawyer.
18
posted on
08/24/2011 10:57:38 PM PDT
by
Kirkwood
(Zombie Hunter Hobbit)
To: stormer
19
posted on
08/24/2011 10:58:38 PM PDT
by
Lmo56
(If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
To: All
For the Gardasil bashers out there, HPV-16 one of the strains it protects against, is linked to penile cancer.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
