Sat Nov 21 2009
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.
Comments
By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed.
State-Journal.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Login above or Register to comment.
Jump to Page: 1 2 3
Previous 10 Comments Next 10 Comments of 25 Total Comments
|
15.
|
Posted by mommyof2 October 3, 2008
|
|
|
To vivian,
It most certainly is true and it does not make a case for the man. I signed a piece of paper stating that if any other procedures needed to be performed then I gave permision. He did not remove my organ to set the record straight, he removed the part that was affected. I still stand behind Dr. Patterson.. |
||
|
14.
|
Posted by cattailky October 3, 2008
|
|
|
"Mr. Seaton signed a patient consent form, recognizing that "unforeseen conditions may necessitate additional or different procedures'," the press release said.
Even if this man signed a release, I think the dr should have thought, Gee, maybe I should ask him BEFORE I CUT OFF HIS PENIS!!!!!. Damn, a little warning would have been nice I would think. I am not a man (althought I play one on TV, haha), but I know what a penis is for. This man's wife is gonna suffer too. I don't agree with frivolous lawsuits, but this man should sue the dr for every penny he's got! |
||
|
13.
|
Posted by emtmeyer October 2, 2008
|
|
|
I have worked in an operating room for many years now and I can see both sides of this case so I will not comment on that, but to tamed shrew, I am sure that tissue was sent to the lab during the surgery to determine if it was cancerous. It does not take long for the results. multiple samples are usually sent and the areas are marked with silk ties so that they can determine how much needs to be removed.
|
||
|
12.
|
Posted by Tamed-Shrew October 2, 2008
|
|
|
Question: how do you determine something is definitely cancerous during a surgery? All of the procedures I've had (biopsies as well as laparoscopies) required the tissue to be analyzed in a lab setting before the doctor could pronounce it cancerous and take next steps.
|
||
|
11.
|
Posted by Vivian October 2, 2008
|
|
|
Surely what mommyof2 said is not true. It can't be.
If it's true, then she made the case for the gentleman mentioned in this article. It shows a pattern of body tissue removal without patients approval. Surely to God this is not true. |
||
|
10.
|
Posted by joshclaywell October 2, 2008
|
|
|
"WHAT said!? IF his ___ talked, then I would say this guy should be able to sue for a couple $Billion."
The press release ... Duh! |
||
|
9.
|
Posted by mommyof2 October 2, 2008
|
|
|
Speaking as a former patient of Dr. Patterson I am completely behind him. My reason why.... I had a surgery for kidney stones preformed by Dr. Patterson and during the surgery he found that my bladder was cancerous and removed a portion of it. I was 18 years old and this was unheard of at my age. If it where not for him finding the cancer I may not be here now. I do have complications from the surgery (frequent bathroom trips..etc) but the way I see it I would much rather have these issues then the alternative. Yes what happened to this man is unfortunate but he should thank God that he is still alive.... Just my opinion.
|
||
|
8.
|
Posted by perplexed October 2, 2008
|
|
|
Why didn't this guy get a second opinion before the surgery? Somebody wants to cut on my manhood, you better believe I would have 2 or 3 opinions before anybody did anything,
|
||
|
7.
|
Posted by braswell98 October 2, 2008
|
|
|
I feel sorry that this guys manhood & medical issue being splashed all over local and national. I was to ever need a toe removed, I would sure hope the doctor would wake me up and ask before removing my entire foot or leg.
Regardless of the medical nessesity of removing the body part, I think that would/should be a standard practice. If the penis had to be removed, it wasn't life and death a could have waited a day or two for a second oppinion or at least give the husband and wife time to consider it. |
||
|
6.
|
Posted by doesitreallymattereddie? October 2, 2008
|
|
|
Only presented ONE SIDE!!! I'm sorry, but I would like to SJ to print the names of the 50+ LOCAL PHYSICIANS that SUPPORTED Dr. Patterson. I WOULD really like to avoid them as well.
--------------- "Patterson recommended circumcision but during the course of surgery he discovered a portion of Seaton's penis had become cancerous, it said." WHAT said!? IF his ___ talked, then I would say this guy should be able to sue for a couple $Billion. I know my grammar is bad but then again, I'm not a professional writer / editor. |
||
Previous 10 Comments Next 10 Comments | Home | Back
Copyright Frankfort Publishing Co., LLC 1995-2009. All Rights Reserved.
Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher.
Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher.
Dix Communications