Penis amputated!

Well, the Oddly Enough section of Yahoo has provided me with a little post again. In reading I saw this story about doctors amputating a Texas man’s penis as part of his surgical treatment for a malignancy of his bladder. If the facts are true as presented in the story, I believe he may have grounds to win the case.

Now, there are certain operations where a surgeon may not be able to tell a patient definitively before surgery that he/she may need to remove one organ/tissue or another. In the case of surgery for cancer this applies. It is sometimes not possible to visualise all the areas that a tumour may have spread to until the body is opened up on the table. In order to try for adeqaute surgical clearance of a cancer, it may be necessary to remove a larger amount of tissue than initially envisaged.

What I think ought to have happened here (if it did not) is that the man should have been advised by the surgical team that a penectomy might have been necessary as part of the operation. This should have been specifically included in writing on the consent form for the operation, and indicated to the patient that he is giving permission for his penis to be removed if it is deemed necessary. If he chooses not to give consent, then that is a different affair. If this was indeed done, then I doubt he will have much legal recourse. From the story this does not appear to be the case.

I wonder if Texas T Bone has heard of this case of cutting off a man’s meat?? A rather errr…..’short’ and unfortunate case I may add.

8 Responses to “Penis amputated!”

  1. Allison Says:
    That was unbelievable to me. I usually side with the Doctors in malpractice cases, figuring they deserve the benefit of the doubt, and I am of the opinion most people who sue are just wanting money. It costs all of us higher insurance premiums, as the cost of medical care goes up. But in this case, I read the test to determine if it was indeed necessary to remove the penis would have taken 30 minutes to an hour. I can’t imagine a reason to skip the test. It’s not like we’re talking about your appendix, eh? If I was this guy, (or his wife, right?) I wouldn’t want the money, I”d want those doctor’s liscences. If not their heads!
  2. Allison Says:
    That’s assuming it’s true what the guy is saying- that they didn’t mention it might be necessary. As *ahem* hard as that is to imagine them not mentioning it, it’s even less likely they would have neglected to put such a thing in writing! Outrageous!
  3. Dr. D. Says:
    And which heads might you be referring to Allison??
  4. Allison Says:
    The smaller ones!
  5. Vernon Says:
    I cringed when I read the title of this entry.
  6. Jamie Says:
    I’m a woman and felt the need to cross my legs and say OUCH!!!
  7. dssdoc Says:
    Dr.D…Being the bean counter that I am, I have one question…..How do you put a price tag on Mr. Johnson? Acticle says he was suing for 5Mil. Consulted my wife who is a lawyer and she said this would be determined by a myriad of factors to include loss of income resulting from the accident and pain and suffering caused. Is it just me or does anybody else think this guy got sold “short”.
  8. Dr. D. Says:
    dssdoc….loss of income?? I can’t see how much income this man would have lost on account of having his dick cut off…unless he was a gigolo or something. And, if that is the case then I hope he was not paid by the inch, because if that is so his income has just been CUT! Dramatically. Seriously though, I am not sure how these figures that people sue for are calculated….your wife may be able to come up with a far better answer. I’m sure that a lawyer defending the doctors in this case may aruge that the penis is not an organ on which a man depends for his life. I would argue for the patient and say that he may be able to live without it, but how? It pretty damn well affects the quality of any man’s life (as well as that of his partner). And indeed, losing it may well ’shorten’ his life expectancy!