Penis Gone, Money Coming

Oh brother, there is always a story to get a person to wonder... just what in the cosmos is the world coming to? Are earthlings just that stupid or greedy? Although seemingly strange bedmates, cancer and money are not so opposite. At least not in a flow through sort of way. Cancer is a money maker... just ask anybody on chemo or radiation treatments. But that facet of the business is not the topic for today!

No, rather than get maudlin and mushy, the soaper out of Kentucky puts the cancer-money thing in comic relief. Here are a few baseline items to consider:

• On 10 ottobre 2007, Philip Seaton went into Jewish Hospital-Shelbyville for a circumcision.
• In the process of the de-skinning, urologist John Patterson come upon a cancer riddled penis (presumably the cock head).
• The surgeon amputated an inch of the penis. (Later another surgeon removed the remainder of Seaton's dinger.)
• Cancer is cancer, after all...
• The semi literate, perhaps mostly illiterate, Philly had signed two boiler plate consent forms prior to the trim, one of which allowed for the treatment of unforseen circumstances.
• Both Seaton and his estranged wife, Deb, began litigation against Jewish and Patterson, asserting that the scalpel toting pee-man did NOT have consent to carry out the deforming and de-manning ampu.
• Debo, for her part, asserts that she was ultimately denied loss of service and affection.
• Jewish settled before the trial. Funny thing about that, what with the hospital being named Jewish. Who would have thought that such a named institution wouldn't fight to the death for circumcision.
• The trial, which ended in late August resulted in a jury verdict for the healer. Not surprisingly the Seatons have appealed. Phil doesn't feel like a man.
• And on a day (9-11) of some import here and there throughout the USA, a two person appeals court (J Stumbo and D Dixon) in Frankfort heard the appeal arguments. The third judge, M Caperton, will watch the videos later. He mistakenly traveled to Louisville for the hearing. Hmmm... Sometimes smart people blow it, too.
• Phil has been and he remains depressed because he no longer has a penis. Well that is understandable for a man without a penis, well, ya' know.

Not in dispute and important to note is the fact that Phil indeed had penile cancer. There was no misdiagnosis. The issue on point has nothing to do with cancer, but rather whether Patterson had the necessary permission to schlong amputate. In short, did he have the patient's consent? Again, it is not whether he did the right thing, but was the action authorized? The fast and dirty answer is NO!

The medical and legal brain trusts are tender about doing things to people. Growing out of the Nuremburg trials, the concept of informed consent has become rooted in traditional medicine. In fact, permission to carry out a procedure requires not only a consent (yes do it), but more. The practitioner is obliged to outline the nature, benefits, risks and alternatives to the proposed ministration. If all of those hot buttons are pushed and accepted by the patient, effective informed consent has been satisfied. Ta-da.

Exceptions do exist for the need to obtain informed consent. Perhaps the emergency one could be twisted to justify the Uro's definitive move? Was it an emergency? Remember Patterson was circumcising when he uncovered the malignancy. Was Seaton in eminent danger of death or loss of limb (he-he)?  Well, penile cancer can kill... But it was not a true emergency as presented inasmuch as the cancer was not about to take his life on the OR table.

Certainly the Doctor could have broken scrub and discussed the situation with the now unfulfilled Deb before he did the slice and dice. Was the fact that she and Phil were estranged a factor? Maybe in Kentucky, there is no valid marriage between a a man and an estranged woman? Or between and estranged man and a woman? Or if both people are estranged? Or if both people are the same gender? Bosh.

Is it possible that the circumcision could have been completed and then later, when heads cooled, the dottore and Mr. Seaton could have pow-wowed (with or without Deb's input.) The alternatives to the de-cocking could have been discussed. Topics such as other treatments, prostheses, second opinions and the like would have been germane. Among the alternatives, there is always the option of doing nothing. While this latter proposition seems ridiculous with cancer at the plate, nonetheless a person has right to do whatever.

Stumbo-Dixon-Caperton

From the questions posited by Judge Stumbo (yep, Stumbo), she gets it. Too bad for the medico with her on the panel because there are Jersey odds 8:5 that she is gonna overturn the lower court decision. Dixon, too, was on point. As for Caperton (when he shows up), only time will tell. But here on the East Coast, the well intentioned Patterson looks like the ultimate loser. Hey, he only tried to save Phil's life. How dare he? Indeed! Aw, he has malpractice insurance... right?

Ciao

Stumbo noted that Patterson, after finding the cancer, didn’t momentarily halt the surgery and seek the consent of Deborah Seaton, who was outside the operating room.

George noted that Seaton signed the two consent forms in the days before the surgery, but said his client was basically illiterate and didn’t intend to give Paterson consent to amputate, only conduct a circumcision. Stumbo appeared to agree.

“I noticed these were very, very, very broad instructions,” Stumbo said.

Dixon asked why Patterson felt it was necessary to amputate as much of the penis as he did.

“Is there another procedure … he could have had that would have meant he wouldn’t have had to have part of his penis removed?” Dixon said.
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2012/09/11/kentucky-man-sues-doctor-for-amputating-his-penis/