State-Journal.com - Doctor explains genital amputation

Dr. John Patterson, the Frankfort physician sued for medical malpractice over amputating a man's penis without his consent, says it was cancerous and the operation was "medically necessary."

Phillip Seaton complained to Patterson in October 2007 about foreskin soreness and drainage from his penis, a press release issued Wednesday said.

Patterson recommended circumcision but during the course of surgery he discovered a portion of Seaton's penis had become cancerous, it said.

"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," according to the press release.

After the tissue was removed, pathology confirmed that it was in fact squamous cell carcinoma, the press release said.

Clay Robinson, Patterson's attorney, did not return a call seeking comment. Robinson said in the press release that Patterson would not conduct an interview.

Seaton filed the malpractice suit in Shelby County where he lives.

"I do not believe in trying cases in the news media and will not be drawn into the media circus surrounding this case," Robinson was quoted in the press release.

"Dr. Patterson and I look forward to a full and fair hearing of this matter in a court of law."

According to the press release, Seaton also gave Patterson permission to perform any procedure that was necessary.

"Mr. Seaton signed a patient consent form, recognizing that "unforeseen conditions may necessitate additional or different procedures'," the press release said.

Kevin George, Seaton's attorney, said his client should have been consulted before the amputation was performed. He could have sought a second option and consulted with his wife, George said.

"He would have liked to have some input as to what treatment would be given to him, especially when removing his penis," George told The State Journal Wednesday.

George said his client is very angry but is "probably holding up better than most people would." The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

The consent his client gave prior to operation would allow Patterson to perform additional surgery if something went wrong or there was an emergency, George said.

"It's not true for example, if he's doing a procedure and notices a problem with Mr. Seaton's elbow," George said. "Surely they are not contending consent to a circumcision would allow him to operate on his elbow."

More than 50 local physicians also signed a letter to The State Journal supporting Patterson and criticizing a report the newspaper published last week.
"Dr. Patterson is a respected physician and member of the community and this article unfairly smeared his reputation by only presenting one side of the issue," according to the letter.

Patterson is a board-certified urologist with more than 20 years of experience, the press release said. A public relations firm in Nashville issued it.

25.	Posted by nomder October 18, 2008
	I say the man has a very valid case. This type of cancer rarely requires radical surgery. The following information is from the Mayo Clinic. Most squamous cell carcinomas can be completely removed with relatively minor surgery or occasionally with a topical medication. The type of squamous cell carcinoma treatment usually depends on the size, location and aggressiveness of the tumor and may include one or more of the following: Freezing. This involves removing cancerous cells by freezing them with liquid nitrogen (cryosurgery). It's effective for small squamous cell carcinomas, but isn't recommended for larger tumors or those on your nose, ears or eyelids. Simple excision. In this procedure, your doctor cuts out the cancerous tissue and a surrounding margin of healthy skin. Your doctor may recommend a wide excision " removing additional normal skin around the tumor " in some cases. To minimize scarring, especially on your face, consult a doctor skilled in skin reconstruction. Laser therapy. An intense beam of light vaporizes growths, usually with little damage to surrounding tissue and with a reduced risk of bleeding, swelling and scarring. Lasers are often used to treat superficial carcinomas on the lips. Mohs' surgery. This is often considered the most effective treatment for squamous cell carcinomas, especially those that are larger than 2 centimeters, have recurred, or are located on the face, mucous membranes or genital area. During the procedure, your doctor removes the tumor layer by layer, examining each layer under the microscope until no abnormal cells remain. This allows the entire growth to be removed without taking an excessive amount of surrounding healthy skin. Because it requires particular expertise, Mohs' surgery should only be performed by doctors specifically trained in the procedure. Radiation therapy. This may be an option for treating large cancers on the eyelids, lips and ears " areas that are difficult to treat surgically " or for tumors too deep to cut out. The recurrence rate is high, however " as much as 50 percent for large tumors. Chemotherapy. For very superficial cancers, creams or lotions containing anti-cancer agents may be applied directly to your skin. Some of these medications can cause severe inflammation and scarring, so be sure to discuss potential complications with your doctor.

22.	Posted by emtmeyer October 8, 2008
	True that surgery will not progress with out a signed consent form but as the pt you have the right to initial and consent to which treatments you approve of or make it known what you do not want done ie. blood products, extra procedures, ect. I am not defending or condoning or saying that he was wrong in his decision. He may have not had any choice. In order to do a plastic reconstruction any time you remove skin you have to have healthy viable skin to reconstruct with ample blood flow for healing. The cancer may have been to the point that more removal was necessary to have healthy tissue for the reconstruction. If he could not reconstruct with further removal he may have had to leave the wound open which could lead to serious infection or death. We also do not know if the entire penis was removed or if just partial removal. Just giving everyone some food for thought.