Furthermore, using studies like that to validate/encourage ritualized genital mutilation (ie, circumcision) is just as absurd as the original reasons used to promote circumcision in America, which was that it was thought to reduce/stop masturbation.

However, in the end, with a positive pathology report, the case is not likely to win, no matter how horrific you may think it is to have your johnson cut off. Just imagine how much MORE horrific to watch it ROT off from cancer, which then spreads to your entire body, from whence you emaciate, rot, THEN die.

Hmmmm, interesting, and tough, case.

See, I'm not as poorly informed as you thought ;-

And Lance Armstrong had testicular, not penile cancer. Big difference.

This case was of an ADULT man with phimosis. So whatever the reason he developed it (infection, poor hygiene) he obviously consented to a circumcision. The problem with the story begins after that fact, not before.

It's also a state that takes the "we don't need no driver's training" approach, and as a result has people that stop at random, run through stops, yield to yellow or red cars, think that the middle and left lanes of I-65 are their god-given place, and that the turn signal is the mark of the beast.

When I hear anti-democratic opinions down here, 80% of them are because "Obama is the antichrist" rather than any worldly reasons.

Finally, Kentucky is not "Southern". It was barely touched by the conferderates, is in the middle of the country, and generally fits in more as a midwest state. However, just try explaining that to people down here. The best logic I've found to support that Kentucky is Southern is that they serve sweet tea almost everywhere.

That said, people are generally nice. The weather is pleasant, there's lots of country side (with only 4 real cities in the state--Louisville, Lexington, Bowling Green, and Paducah), and the land can be gorgeous.

Come to visit, but I don't know if you'd really want to stay.

This is not your daddy's skins game.

Off topic comments may garner you a warning or worse.

Holy crap you don't go cutting that off people that's just not cricket.

This reminds me of the David Reimer story! It's such a sad story. :-(

I'm not a surgeon, but I would expect before any operation there would be this thing called "an exam"? Shouldn't that have turned up any abnormality severe enough to require amputation?

I don't think that he's coming from privilege just because he's a man. He's lost something that, in our society, is held up as sacrosanct to his masculinity - just as breasts and ovaries are considered central to femininity. I think that's one of the things feminism is about (at least it was for me) - that we're not to be objectified by our bodies. But we all know men's physical objectification is usually tied to their genitals.

And please, don't even consider Lorena Bobbitt as a feminist - that's just a stereotype. Folks like her and Valerie Solanas are more properly "misandrists".

@TacoDave:

where do you get your hair done that you'd let them stick something not even remotely resembling scissors in your eye?? ;)

Though, can they do the same kind of biopsy if the tissue is severed/dead?

/not a doctor

Back in the day doctors did all sorts of crap like lobotomies, electroshock therapy, blood-letting, etc. This is not a feminist issue, since today a woman given a surprise mastectomy would likewise be able to sue. And then she would get a nice pair of artificial breasts, while this guy is in for much suffering.

And yeah, unless you're cool with your husband cutting off your breasts--with a spoon--please don't decide to cut of his penis if he is incapacitated. Don't be that kind of feminist.

Otherwise I would agree with you. I'm not circumcised and don't see a good reason for it other than medical complications.

...if we ever have surgery, we intend to grab the doctor by the collar and say vigorously to him, "No matter what happens, don't you cut off my penis."

I'll have to say that exact thing to my doctor when I go in for laser eye surgery.

IANAL

Though, I'll admit, "deadly penis cancer" isn't exactly top of the list of probabilities.

i certainly hope that poor man wasn't giggling during his surgery... but that would explain a possible ACCCIDENTAL amputation...

Thankfully this story wasn't submitted by the OP as personal experience complete with "and now they won't answer my phone calls".

What good is life without your sex organ, anyway?

@mythago: Some uncircumcised men also develop the condition of their wives saying "ewww there is NO WAY i'm putting that ugly thing in my mouth". This may also have been the cause of the surgery.

@CAK:

And you're oh so right Spatula! Does the words Armstrong and cyclist remind you of anything? That's exactly what he had, and that was few years ago, mind you.

What makes me wonder if I should laugh or cry, is the doctor's excuse: "we found cancer". Really? Without a biopsy? I'm no doctor myself, I'm not even going to pretend that I know about the medicine field. But after watching so many tv shows about real doctors and emergency rooms; one thing I have learn for certain. And it is the fact that a doctor can tell you with a very good degree of certainty that what he's seeing on the X rays, the MRI, the ultrasound, etc., may be cancer. But the amazing thing is that almost no one can tell if a mass or tissue they're looking at (in the flesh) is cancer. Cancerous tissue does not have an specific look. That's why every surgeon that perform surgery to explore or remove tissue or mass will send it to the lab; even before the patient comes back from the anestetia. THE LAB AND ONLY THE LAB CAN CONFIRM IF THE MASS IS CANCER OR NOT!!!!!!!!!!

Didn't that doctor know Armstrong story? Some "weird" things were going on with his pencil. He decided to go to the doctor, and after some test and a BIOPSY, the doctor told him that he had cancer.

Now talking directly to you dr. demento, if the guy just wanted a circumcission, what were you looking for INSIDE his pencil when all you had to do was remove the foreskin? If I were the guy, no if I were the guy's wife I would sue you for your bank accounts, your house, your cars, your membership in the country club, your last name AND YOUR PENIS

Obviously I'm not saying that this man should have had his penis removed - clearly the doctor should have gotten consent from his wife at the very least. However, as a feminist, I think it's important to point out that this man is coming from a point of privilege where he will be awarded a lot of money for this doctor's mistake. Meanwhile, many women (who would now be in their 70s or 80s) were never compensated, apologized to, and had to live with the results for the rest of their lives. Doctors told them to be happy they were alive and not to worry about the scars, or their appearance. See a picture of scars here: [www.myselftogetheragain.org]

For example, read this woman's story:
[www.livestrong.org]

And a nurse's perspective.

"As a nurse, I learned that it was common practice in the late 60s and early 70s for a woman to go into surgery for the assessment of a breast lump not knowing whether or not her breast was still there when she awakened. During these years a survivor was asked to sign a consent form that stated if the biopsy was positive for cancer, the survivor may have a mastectomy."
[www.cancerfacts.com]

I've had instances where I couldn't adequately examine a patient's penis because of bad phimosis. In those cases I've held involved discussions with the patient about performing a circumcision (sometimes under general anesthesia) with the possibility of removing part, or all of the penis if it looks like cancer. Sometimes the patient agrees to everything, sometimes they say "circumcision only."

Point is, the doc should have gotten better Informed Consent. In its absence, he/she (there are female urologists, you chauvinist pigs!) should have come back to fight another day.

As far as urinating afterward, it depends on how much of the penis was amputated. If it was a partial then it may look, and function, not unlike an intact penis. If a total penectomy was performed, the urethra (tube running though penis) is brought out through an opening in the perineum (taint) and the man would have to pee sitting down.

Most men I know would rather die by cancer then lop that particular thing off, I know i'd feel the same if I had one. It sounds like someone made a big "Whoops" somewhere. Now this guy gets to live a life of strap ons. Eesh. There was no way to reattach it I wonder? There was a local story some years back about a woman who vindictively cut off her husband's junk and i think they reattached it after fishing it out of the toilet or some stupid arsed thing.

There could have been a large cancerous mass about to intrude onto a large vein (which there are plenty in the penis) and if they hadn't removed it, the cells could have entered his blood stream and gone straight to the heart, brain, and lungs.

If this is true, I'm guessing that there would have been a detectable lump that would have been noticed hopefully by the patient or his wife, or by the doctor during a pre-op exam. There aren't many places to hide in the penis.

And if this is true, it should be a simple matter to produce the penis and the cancerous mass. It doesn't just go into the trash can. The doctor should easily be able to show what the problem was and why he thought it was life-threatening.

If it wasn't life-threatening, then at a minimum the patient's wife should have been informed and allowed to make a decision.

The importance of a penis (both as a functioning organ and to the patient's mental health) is not a mystery. Even I know that, and I don't have one. It's not like the doctor just cut off a finger, but it's ok, you have nine more.

Doctors are in the business of saving lives. They are also human beings and they make mistakes. If this doctor made a mistake in this case, it's a whopper and at a minimum the patient deserves compensation, medical care, and a whole lot of mental health care. If the doctor didn't make a mistake, the patient needs to understand why it was necessary.

Dang, I guess I shouldn't have tattooed a big black X on my penis.

/Uncircumcized brit here living in US, and HATE the routine, un-needed child circumcisions that go on here.

That cancer was not going to kill him in one day. Absolutely they should have waited to discuss it with him. He might ultimately have decided it really was medically necessary, but that was so obviously his decision to make.

Sometimes doctors do have to make emergency decisions, but I can't see this being one of them.

That's some messed up junk.

The doctor isn't going to want to stitch the tumor itself and they are not going to want to leave an area with no skin on it.

I completely agree that under no circumstances should a man's penis be removed without his consent. Unequivocally.

Her abdomen was scanned by a nurse, who immediately ran out to get a doctor. The doctor came in, took one look at the machine and said "we'll have to operate!"

My mother said "ok, let me go get my planner so I can see when I'll be free-"

"No, lay back, we're going to operate" the doctor said, and stuck a mask over her face.

One of her ovaries ruptured on the operating table, if she had gone home she would have died.

Without knowledge of exactly what was happening inside this man's penis, we can't really say if the doctor made the right decision. There could have been a large cancerous mass about to intrude onto a large vein (which there are plenty in the penis) and if they hadn't removed it, the cells could have entered his blood stream and gone straight to the heart, brain, and lungs.

As much as I hate the bills I get, I like to remember that doctors are in the business of saving lives, not performing service tasks.

@nerdychaz: Y'know, the problem of "dick cheese" is easily solved by this new technology called BATHING YOURSELF!

Anyone complaining of such a problem needs to spend a little extra time in the shower cleaning their junk.

@SybilDisobedience: But remember, according to the article he didn't consent to general anesthesia. I'm starting to think that the doctor may have confused "circumsision" with "amputation" before the surgery and then made up the cancer claim.

@sruss13: how about all the other stuff he just said though. Don't just take part of his arguement and throw out the rest.

Anyway, it doesn't matter why this dude was getting the ole' snip, just that they took off a much larger portion of his body than he had asked them to.

There is no reason to amputate without the patient's or a representive of the patient's consent.

My guess is that the surgeon will turn out to have drug problems. Or a previously diagnosed mental disorder. Or both.

What I immediately thought of was the case in NYC many years back where the obstetrician carved his initials into the patient's belly after delivering her baby via caesarian:
[query.nytimes.com]

"The state also cited the clinic for not thoroughly checking Dr. Zarkin's credentials and for allowing him to perform surgery unsupervised even though a psychiatrist had told clinic officials that Dr. Zarkin had a brain disorder."

@silver-bolt: Woah there. Settle down now. HUMOR man.

They didnt even need to wake him up if his wife was nearby, thats what next of kins are for. "Hey we found canser if your husband's penis and if we dont take it off, he'll die, sign here please"

She signs, no big deal.

According to American Cancer Society page on penile cancer, penile cancer is one of the most rare cancers in the world. They don't recommend circumcision to prevent penile cancer. Instead, they simply recommend washing yourself while you shower.

They also cited a study that showed that Denmark, which doesn't circumcise, has very similar penile cancer rates to the United States which cuts.

Penile cancer is just another scare tactic used to sell circumcisions to parents who haven't bothered to research the topic.

Phimosis is also a nonissue. There are simple stretching techniques that will resolve phimosis. Google the Beauge method. Of course, if you take proper care of a newborn (don't retract), its doubtful that he'll even have a problem.

Circumcision is extremely painful whether done as an adult or newborn. Its just that newborns can't fight back when they're being strapped down and cut and feeling the whole thing.

One doesn't develop phimosis, as in men don't have a fully retractable foreskin and then have it magically reattach itself to the head of the penis.

There are actually two main kinds of phimosis:
Congenital phimosis is the normal phimosis that a newborn has when he's born. It resolves itself by puberty and is a normal developmental process. Doctors who don't know what they are doing will prescribe circumcision to "correct" this normal process.

Iatrogenic phimosis is generally caused by improper care as a newborn and child. American doctors, being circumcision fanatics, usually don't know much about foreskins. When a a parent does the right thing and doesn't circumcise, the doctor will sometimes advise the parent to retract at every diaper change. A child that young will have congenital phimosis and this premature retraction will cause tearing, bleeding, infection, and a lot of pain. The foreskin will attempt to reattach to the glans and will form scar tissue in places. When the boy's foreskin starts to naturally detach, this scar tissue will remain attached, causing iatrogenic phimosis. American doctors will eagerly recommend circumcision to correct their mistake, but really, the tissue just needs to be stretched out and will detach on its own. Worst case, the scar tissue itself just needs to be cut, leaving the foreskin intact.

Probably more than you want to know about phimosis, but most Americans are woefully misinformed. I had to learn all of this so my son wouldn't have problems caused by improper medical care.

hmmm detachable penis

@mgy:
holy crap, that story is just like one that was on oprah yesterday. a woman had a baby in august of last year, and had flesh eating bacteria and they amputatied her arms and legs. it was of course with her knowledge but how bizzare that it happened to another woman, nearly exactly the same only a few months beforehand.

note to self, do not have a c section in certain hospitles, you might lose your limbs.

Not true. The totally unnecessary practice of newborn circumcision is rare in Europe, but Europe has similar penile cancer rates to the US.

I'm surprised that,. as a urologist, you would be so poorly informed.

There is no way that chopping of this guys tubesteak is anywhere near medically necessary.

Hell, I think I'd rather keep the cancerous prick and just bang my life away with hookers instead of having it chopped off.

@fisherstudios: Do you amputate your finger nails? Do you go to the barber every three months for a "hair amputation"?

Though I do admit to amputating some turds once in a while.

Intelligent Design = Fail because the foreskin has no zipper.

For all I know, Freddy was the surgeon. I remember less than two minutes from each procedure.

Maybe the surgeon sneezed?

@laserjobs: Agreed!

Also, maybe this will finally answer the question of how much money would it take to cut off your penis.

@TheSpatulaOfLove:

And the problem here is that for one, it may be against is reilgion or he wanted to get some other form of treatment. Removing the area surrounding the cancer does not always fully get rid of the cancer nor it is the only method of trying to get rid of it.

If you scream "Fire" in a crowded theater, expect to get beaten up and/or arrested. Claiming it was a joke after the fact won't prevent it.

In the future, if you want to practice that brand of humor without rancor, try stating that it's a joke IN the post somehow. If you can't do that, at least try to make it obvious that you're not serious. Heck, make it subtle even.

No joke, I was let the cancer kill me before I removed my penis.

If cancer was found, where are the pathology reports?

a doctor willing to do circumcisions on infants has already lost all sense of the hippocratic oath and ethics so it's not a stretch to find them hurting a patient to keep their malpractice down

I'm not sure what the exact law is in the state regarding this, but it is possible to argue (by the defense) that there the extra surgery was done because of an emergency medical need (for which consent is implied). Because general anesthesia could be seen as a life threatening operation, there is the possibility that this case could result in the doctors escaping the charges. Whether or not that's the right thing is up in the air depending on your view of the law (although I would argue that the doctors were clearly overstepping their authority).

"I guess you can write on your pecker not to EVER cut it completely off if you go in for a circumcision."

Some people can write all that. Some folks have to abbreviate.

Some poor bastards just have to write "NO".

I would be interested to know what the other people in the room witnessed as the surgery was taking place. There's no way it was just the doctor and the patient--got to be at least a nurse or two, someone to put the patient under, a technician to hand him sterile instruments...they were witnesses.

And then there's "Anti-Circumcision Guy" who protested at University of Chicago Hospitals when I was there. The story was that as a kid they'd botched his circumcision. I hope he shows up to give expert testimony at this trial.

Class tomorrow is going to be awesome.

Ah doctors & their god complexes!

"We've just made a new note to self: if we ever have surgery, we intend to grab the doctor by the collar and say vigorously to him, "No matter what happens, don't you cut off my penis." Who knew you had to worry about that sort of thing."

Reminds me of the practice of patients marking on their body with a black sharpie pointing out exactly what kind of surgery or which part the doctor should be operating on. Like if your left knee is to be operated on... you write something like "THIS knee is the bad one.... operate on THIS one". I guess you can write on your pecker not to EVER cut it completely off if you go in for a circumcision.

i have a lot of allergies, including mangoes. and the hospital kitchen once sent up my lunch tray, WITH the allergy list next to the plate clearly stating my mango allergy, under a fruit cup full of mango slices.
how could i trust them to read the medication allergy armband before hooking me up to a new bag? i know nurses and kitchen staff are trained differently, but i am still going to check every time.

and if it was an inhaled anesthesia, rather than IV sedation, wouldn't you stop and ask why the gas mask is being put over your mouth?

Having said that... I simply cannot conceive of a situation where a surgeon in his right mind would have a patient consent for a circumcision and only a circumcision, and then go ahead and remove the penis. Even if during the surgery the doctors became convinced that this patient had cancer, how about first TAKING A BIOPSY and finding out what that shows? Like others have pointed out, this was not an emergent situation. The patient's penis had a lesion; it wasn't on fire.

Part of the duties of the OR staff is to make sure that the surgeons don't operate beyond the scope of the consent that the patient has given. In this particular case, it may have been reasonable for the surgeons to biopsy any suspicious area or lesion (debatable), but complete amputation of the penis is wildly beyond the scope of consent that was obtained.

Oh, and for someone else who asked about anesthesia, yes, general anesthesia is often used for circumcisions. It's really up to the patient and the doctor. You can do these under local when the patient is an adult, but honestly, some patients just want to be out.

/Yay, Torts class is actually useful!

Interesting that I should read about this now. I'm covering some related stuff in a current health law class, and from the little information available from the article, it looks like this doctor/practice is screwed.

A friend of my mom's was having surgery to remove a small melanoma on her face... which turned out to be a giant tumor that had spread halfway across her nose and cheek. When they discovered this, they stopped surgery and talked to her husband about it and let him decide how to proceed. This is why you designate a person to act on your behalf when you're under sedation.

You'd think that there's some sort of informed consent law. The guy might have been able to figure out what his options where (instead of just loosing his junk), and had time to prepare for it.

"You don't cut ANYTHING off without MY permission." I had 5 witnesses (one of whom was my boss) and made that abundantly clear. I told my wife my wishes as well.

Unlike many people, I'm not afraid of doctors.

It was a joke, sheesh! Tough crowd around here.

I guess this guy's gonna be major rich, and now go out and buy a Corvette or a Viper... (yes, another dick joke)

@TakingItSeriously:

Awesome name. I hate it by the way.

@craftypants:

Actually they can get an answer during surgery...it is called a frozen section. A pathologist will take a piece of the tissue, freeze it, stain it, and look at it under the microscope. Frozen sections are a very common thing, especially in cancer cases.

I've never heard of a circumcision being sent for frozen section though and without pathology they could not determine whether or not it was really cancer.

This whole case sounds very very bizarre...from the general anesthetic to the amputation. Reading the article didn't tell me much more.

There's just so much that doesn't make sense.

@craftypants:
sorry, that was meant to be a reply to someone elses comment, I used the wrong text box

@ninabi:
Financial decisions are not the surgeon's decision to make

@padams89:

I think that is so that if your heart stops they have permission to start it again without going in search of next of kin for consent.

I am no medic but surely they cannot be sure of cancer (and to cut off...that....you better be 1000% sure) without lab reports, surely they could have taken a tiny sample of the mass, sent it to the lab for examination and then spoken to the patient when they are awake.

And that the doctor knew not to chop my junk off.

@laserjobs: HA! Awesome!

@chatterboxwriting:

Yes but you went in for investigation of an unknown mass with the possibility that whatever they found would need speedy removal, he went in for an routine circumsision and no idea that there was anything wrong with his rather important.....thing

apples and oranges

That's probably the funniest thing I've ever seen on Consumerist. Well done.

Also, the foreskin can be a breeding ground for foul smelling anaerobic bacteria forming disgusting blobs. This is where the term "dick cheese" comes from.

Furthermore, the foreskin can trap viruses from STD's and make it easier to catch an STD. It has been said that circumcision can be one of the best things you can do to prevent the transmission of HIV-AIDS. Don't believe me? [www.medicalnewstoday.com]

AAAHahahahaha!!!

Oh man that seriously gave me a chuckle. Mostly because thinking about it I agree!

Because personally, if my surgeon had removed the whole package, I somehow feel like that'd be easier for me to deal with. But for me to wake up from surgery to find nothing but a pair of testicles down there? That's f***ing weird!

Yes, he could have been awakened to be informed of his condition, but there are also medical bills to consider- the cost of a second surgery,etc.

I'm surprised the man himself didn't see anything amiss.

As a cultural thing, I got my circumcision when I was in middle school. Yes, general anesthesia was used.

---

My sympathies to the man. They really should've asked the man before treating the cancerous spot.

Yes, having cancerous cells is not good in virtually all cases, but especially since it was at an particular important and sensitive spot (the main sex symbol for men and an important part of the excretory system), shouldn't they have asked first?

@MayorBee is getting what plants crave: First name Wong, Dr. Wong Wang...I believe he has a taxi driver brother named Wong Wei.

circumcision: the removal of part of a body extremity by surgery

???

You'd think that if he was in imminent DANGER from the cancer in his Penis his wife might have noticed something like ... "OWE! Hey your junk just BIT ME!"

ok ok bad.

With the details I have I have to side with the "consumer" here. As mentioned above men choose to go through a voluntary circumcision for many reasons. Those are not at issue.

What is at issue is whether this procedure was reasonable given the circumstances. I'm sorry, but IMO Amputation of ANY body part should not be undertaken unless there is an immediate threat to the patients life (e.g. Arm caught in a combine/jaws-of-life for 5 minutes!). If I went in for an ingrown tonail in my big toe (been there) and they put me out (without my consent), and I woke up without a big I'd be hopping mad (but not actually hopping)!

In other news "Surgeon claims to have worlds largest Penis"

these are the facts of the releases the patients sign. I am by no means defending the doctor or blaming the patient because there are significant details the are missing that would be needed for blame to be applied either way.

I'm not a doctor, but I've never heard of cancer of the penis that is killing people so quickly that they couldn't have woken him up, told him about it, and let him decide for himself (or get a second opinion).

"I have a PhDuh in medicine, would you like an Oopsectomy?"

That being said, if there was a concern for penile carcinoma (rare in US, incredibly prevalent in other countries where newborn circumcision is uncommon) the surgeon should have obtained permission for "possible partial or total penectomy" along with the circumcision. Those 5 words would have avoided what is likely going to be a HUGE settlement. That guy is kicking himself over those 5 words right now.

Long-time reader, 1st-time commenter. Being a urologist ("an" sounds so funny) finally came in handy!

@alphafemale:
[instantrimshot.com]

I also wondered why this was done under general anesthesia. Seems like something that could have been done with lidocaine and a benzo for conscious sedation, or at most propofol (which is pretty much instant on/instant off) - then at least they could have woken him up to let them know what was going on. I think there may be more to this story than we are getting, or else just some rather negligent surgeons.

What happened to the penis? How do we know it had cancer for sure? Goddamn I'd be demanding my severed penis so I could go get it checked out.

Holy Christ, this story makes my clit hurt in sympathy.

Again, where is the penis now?

What I'm wondering about is why he was under general anesthesia for this in the first place. It seems like a circumcision could easily be done under local (hell, people used to do it with NO pain relief thousands of years ago).

As for the why, I do think there are some possible, though rare, medical reasons why someone might opt for that as an adult.

@TheSpatulaOfLove: cannnnnnot resssssist.....

He'll prolly get more use outta his dick when he's dead than you get outta your's while you're alive.

sorry i am sure your penis is marvelous and that you get much use out of it.

And what kind of cancer would be in a man's penis?! Is there really penis cancer? I knew there was testicular cancer. And rectal cancer. But penis cancer? I've never heard of penis cancer.

And if the doctor was just doing a circumcision, wouldn't that just involve snipping the foreskin? Unless the tumor was, like, hiding out underneath the foreskin, how would the doctor even KNOW he had penis cancer?...

It sounds like the doctor made a boo-boo while making the snip-snip and cut off a little too much... I hope the poor man and his wife sue them to the high heavens-- and I also hope they make the doctor prove that there WAS cancer in his peen.

I'm not blaming the victim here, but I am curious. Why get a circumcision anyway?

OMG! How do you not wake the guy up first and ask him if it is ok to cut off his junk? WOW!

[www.wftv.com]

I'll be in the corner, shuddering.