Medical malpractice insurance is a driving force in the escalating cost of physician care. It's quite obvious even to a lay person that amputation was going to be the only practical means, to the eventual end, of Mr Seaton's problem. Was the Doctor's call correct? Yes, by all accounts it was.
But psychologically Mr. Seaton was nowhere close, to being prepared for the amputation of his penis. As far as I can tell amputation, was not even discussed prior to Mr. Seaton's surgery, and I do believe he did have the right to know that a part of his body (that I'm sure he was quite attached to, most men are)was not going to be with him upon awakening.
A Kentucky man did not consent to have his penis amputated and the doctor who performed the surgery had options other than removing the organ, even though cancer had been found during a surgery, an attorney argued Tuesday to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
Kevin George, the lawyer for Phillip Seaton of Waddy, told the appeals panel that the medical waiver signed by his client contains extremely broad language and that Dr. John Patterson should have sought consent before removing the penis.
“The point is … a patient has a right,” George said. “The doctor does not have the right to do whatever he wants, even if it turns out to be reasonable.”
Judges Janet Stumbo and Donna Dixon took in the 30 minutes of arguments in Frankfort over whether a judge erred in the jury instructions and if the pre-surgery medical consent form was valid or
