Man goes in for circumcision, wakes up without penis: What happened?

Deborah and Phillip Seaton of Waddy, Ky., wait as their attorney confers with the judge in their civil case against Dr. John Patterson of Louisville Aug. 18, 2011 at the Shelby County Courthouse in Shelbyville, Ky.

/ AP

(CBS/AP) A Kentucky man wants his day in court after going in for a routine circumcision on October 9, 2007 - and waking up without a penis.

Phillip Seaton of Waddy and his wife, Deborah claim in a lawsuit that Dr. John Patterson of Louisville did not consult them before removing Seaton's penis during a circumcision to treat inflammation. They're seeking damages for "loss of service, love and affection." The trial is set to begin Monday.

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

Kevin George, Seatons' attorney, said Dr. Patterson's post-surgical notes show the doctor thought he detected cancer and removed the penis. Lab tests confirmed Seaton had squamous cell carcinoma.

But George said the situation was not an emergency, and argued the family should have been allowed to get a second opinion.

The doctor disagreed.

"While it is unfortunate that he developed this cancer, it is both unfair and unreasonable to blame a physician for providing what was appropriate and necessary care for his condition," Patterson said in a 2008 press release reported by The State Journal of Frankfurt, Ky.

Was the doctor right to cut off Seaton's penis? Or did Seaton get shafted?

The case raises a serious question. Can a doctor just decide to take this step if he/she feels it will save a patient's life?

Whether or not a surgeon has the right to perform surgery is "a difficult question," Dr. Douglas Diekema, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Task Force told CBS News in an email. "If the situation is truly, imminently life threatening, they can and should act."

But Diekema, who was not involved with this case, added, "If there is sufficient time to wake the patient and discuss the situation with the patient, that is generally preferred - particularly if the discovery of something like cancer will involve the removal of an organ or limb."

Would you want your doctor to make a radical decision if it saved your life?

[brinxster]

Totally unethical, cancer is not an emergency. If they can remove it without amputating a body part then sure, attempt to remove it, but if it requires amputation of a body part then he should have just finished the circumcision and then talk to the patient about the situation so he has a choice either to continue living with the cancer or have his sexual organ amputated. What's the point in removing cancer if it may cause the person to have clinical depression and commit suicide anyway? It's best to just discuss this with a patient first.

[CdnSprite]

It seems to me that the hospital policies and state laws with respect to patient consent to perform surgery will have to be reviewed. I live in Canada and over the past few decades, the wording used for surgical consent covers this situation and allows patients to indicate that they are giving consent to have a very limited procedure performed and if the surery reveals a life threatening condition, the patient is to be consulted prior to going ahead with the more extensive procedure. Without knowing the wording of the surgical consent, there really is no way of siding with either the physician, hospital, or patient!

[Imwhatufear]

That is an exceptionally stupid argument, comparing circumcision to breast removal. First of all, male circumcision has been a traditional practice of the Jewish Faith for thousands of years as well as a common practice for the sake of cleanliness in several other cultures. Second how can you compare the removal of a non-functional flap of skin to that of the removal of breast that serve multiple purposes. Third how do you remove someones breasts before they have them, last time I looked I didn't notice any bras in the infant section of clothing store.

[RufusMac]

Ohhellno. I'm on that jury, that doc might as well sign over his entire current and future net worth to his victim.

Some things you don't mess with and THAT is one of 'em. Even a diseased one. Not without telling the man. Nope, this guy should never be allowed to touch another scalpel. EVER

[mollydtt]

Maybe he should have only had a local anesthetic is it was only for something as routine as a circumcision.

[rf35]

Doesn't "caveat emptor" apply in a for-profit health care system?

[thinking_about_it]

Laser treatment for squamous cell carinoma of the ***** works very well with great cosmetic and functional results. This doctor should lose his license and the lawsuit as well. Amputation is the American medical profession first choice instead of less invasive procedures and it doesn't matter if it's mastectomy, vulvectomy or penectomy. American women will suffer 4,340 caases of vulvar cancer and American men 1,360 cases of penile cancer this year.

Dr. Diekema has spoken on other issues and he really doesn't come across as being very ethical. He can't see male infant circumcision as unethical either even though other English speaking countries have nearly stopped its practice.

[voxpopulus]

Of course. Male infant circumcision is a cash cow for these people.

And it's interesting that the first doctor to claim it prevented penile cancer in 1936 ALSO said it prevented epileptic fits.

[rebeccahigh]

I'm surprised that Mrs. Seaton is suing for "loss of service, love and affection." This means she wants to get serviced by a cancerous *****, and that love and affection comes from the *****?

[voxpopulus]

Well, it wasn't so cancerous the doctor could even notice it before knocking the guy out. Why is it that so many women think this is not a problem when - if the same doctor had whipped off a woman's breast without waking her up - they'd want him lynched?

[voxpopulus]

(Women who want to see men emasculated are a little freaky IMHO)

[voxpopulus]

"Would you want your doctor to make a radical decision if it saved your life?" That's not the right question. The right question is "Would you want your doctor to cut off your ***** without asking you rather than waking you up and scheduling another procedure?"

[fxaxrx]

The MD. should not have cut off his *****. You can't have me believe this cancer was spreading so fast that it would have been too late to wait for the patient to awaken. The doctor made a very rash and wrong decision in following the surgery with this procedure. This doctor was wrong and should be expect $ome $eriou$ reprecu$$ion$ for hi$ action$.