A doctor is being sued when a patient goes under the knife for a circumcision and the doctor finds the need to amputate the man's penis because of unforeseen medical necessity.
61 year-old Phillip Seaton underwent a surgical procedure because he had foreskin soreness and drainage from his penis. The doctor recommended circumcision, but during the surgical procedure the doctor discovered a portion Seaton's penis had become cancerous and Dr. John Patterson made the decision that it was medically necessary to amputate Seaton's penis.
The doctor issued a press release stating the patient, Seaton, had signed the appropriate consent which stated that "unforeseen conditions may necessitate additional or different procedures," in which the doctor alleged was enough justification not to stop the procedure, wake the patient and give him the option and instead made the determination himself.
The pathology report, after the fact, showed the patient did indeed have condition called squamous cell carcinoma, which is the second most common form of skin cancer.
InjuryBoard.com makes the following point:
The Mayo Clinic website indicates pretty conservative style treatment that doesn’t seem to recommend cutting off an entire arm if there was this type of cancer on the forearm. So one has to wonder why the entire penis was amputated. There will be some explaining to do in that courtroom.
A press release from a public relations firm in Nashville, on behalf of the physician states "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."
Mr. Seaton and his wife Deborah, who filed a malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Patterson, via the Seaton's attorney Kevin George, believe he should have been consulted before the amputation was performed so that Seaton could have received a second opinion and discussed the procedure with his wife according to State Journal.
.
