Routine circumcision...

[GodlessAstronomer]

archaic

of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time : antiquated

mutilation:

Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death.

Do I need to spell it out for you?

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Craig234
Sounds to me like the situation should be reviewed and if the decision was reasonable the man should say thanks, not sue. Why was a man getting a circumcision, anyway?

The patient (or, in the case where the patient is incapacitated, his family) always has the final say on what procedures are or are not performed. This is a fundamental right of the patient. Even if the guy was unconscious, they should have asked his wife.

Actually, that's not universally true, and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Where I'm familiar with this, only the patient can agree to treatment (i.e. permit it to go ahead). If they are incapacitated, then only the doctors can make the decision to proceed, on the basis of what is best. Relatives, legally, have no say in the matter unless they have power of attorney. However, the doctors may ask the relatives for information (e.g. the patients wishes, previous decisions) to assist in their decision, in particular what is 'best' for the patient.

The issue here is that the surgeons performed a major deforming procedure without appropriate consent, and where it wasn't an emergency. While occasionally cancer does cause a medical emergency, this doesn't sound like one. Cancer certainly doesn't become inoperable in the space of a few days or weeks. Besides, the surgeons went on to perform an operation to remove the cancer, without actually knowing whether the cancer was operable or not; the patient needs a CT scan to determine operability first. The only mitigation would be if the cancer had caused a severe, potentially life threatening, complication during the surgery (e.g. catastrophic bleeding).

It would be a double blow, if the cancer did turn out to be inoperable and he had a wasted operation.

 

[geno]

*cringe*

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Shouldn't there be a line in there about how the dude broke the doctor's nose?

Didn't happen. But he did give him a vigorous slapfight. With out his junk he lost the ability to punch.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

An archaic, religiously motivated body mutilation leads to a cancer diagnosis. Whodathunkit.

Did you post before reading my third post in this thread? Whoda thunk it? :roll:

Causes of penis cancer
The cause of penis cancer unknown but there is a higher incidence of penile cancer in uncircumcised men and men who do not keep the area under the foreskin clean. The presence of smegma, the cheese-like secretion under the foreskin, appears to increase the risk.

 

[Pepsei]

so if you're uncut...always keep your head clean... use your gf if you have to.

 

[BudAshes]

"Causes of penis cancer
The cause of penis cancer unknown but there is a higher incidence of penile cancer in uncircumcised men and men who do not keep the area under the foreskin clean. The presence of smegma, the cheese-like secretion under the foreskin, appears to increase the risk."

AHHHHHHHHHHH. Thank god i'm circumcised.

Also i call shens.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The patient (or, in the case where the patient is incapacitated, his family) always has the final say on what procedures are or are not performed. This is a fundamental right of the patient. Even if the guy was unconscious, they should have asked his wife.

Ask her what?

"Do you want your husband to die within six months in possession of a penis that probably isn't working much anyway @ 61 years of age and certainly isn't going to get any more functional with cancer eating away at it, or do you want your husband to live three to five more years, possibly longer, without a penis?"

Surgeons never hear any answer other than "I'll take three to five years, possibly longer, over six months, please and thank you, especially considering that we don't have nearly as much use for that thing as we once did."

For shame, the surgeons were thinking about the best interests of the patient instead of protecting themselves from lawsuits (i.e. defensive medicine).

 

[aesthetics]

Omg... I'd be so pissed. I mean, I don't have a penis... but I can't even imagine how angry he is. I would've murdered that doctor.

 

[CKent]

Reason # 7 trillion to never go to the south / midwest.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The patient (or, in the case where the patient is incapacitated, his family) always has the final say on what procedures are or are not performed. This is a fundamental right of the patient. Even if the guy was unconscious, they should have asked his wife.

Ask her what?

"Do you want your husband to die within six months in possession of a penis that probably isn't working much anyway @ 61 years of age and certainly isn't going to get any more functional with cancer eating away at it, or do you want your husband to live three to five more years, possibly longer, without a penis?"

Surgeons never hear any answer other than "I'll take three to five years, possibly longer, over six months, please and thank you, especially considering that we don't have nearly as much use for that thing as we once did."

For shame, the surgeons were thinking about the best interests of the patient instead of protecting themselves from lawsuits (i.e. defensive medicine).

I'd rather not live 3-5 years without my dick.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jonks
The law is very clear on this, the docs superceded their authority. There's no such thing as emergency cancer.

well i could see something like, he was bleeding out all over the table, there wasn't time to get the wife, etc. that is, the cancer itself wasn't an emergency, but because the doctors cut into the (previously unknown) tumor it became an emergency.

but we simply don't know.

We do know that no major artery runs through the foreskin of the penis, making that an absolutely outlandish idea.

I'd be interested to know if the amputated penis was available for testing or had already been destroyed some how. My money is on "doctor cut off penis because he's a dumbfuck, made up weaksauce dick cancer story to try and cover his ass".

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
I'd rather not live 3-5 years without my dick.

You're not 61 years of age nor the wife of said 61 year-old. If we're arguing the wife should have been consulted, I don't know too many women that would rather have a decaying penis for six months that probably doesn't work much anyway. Something about women not being as hyper-protective of penises as the person it is attached to.

And I can assure you his penis was in all likelihood discharging some interesting purulent goo, which was the reason that brought him to the doctor in the first place and subsequently diagnosed as phimosis and/or balanoposthitis; the treatment for which is circumcision (I was a surgical technician and first assistant for several years).

So what are you going to do with this pus-producing, painful penis that surely no woman would want to come within 10 feet of, consult with it about your last will and testament? Whisper sweet nothings at it?