Two Female Justices Think It's OK To Amputate Penis, Lone Male Justice Dissents

In a case that has been going on for four years, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the doctor acted properly. What was in contention is that the victim in the case wanted a second opinion, but the doctor said that since the patient signed a consent form, the doctor could treat it as he saw fit. I find it interesting that two of the justices, both women, thought it was ok, yet the lone man on the high court did not.

The main point of contention is whether Patterson acted reasonably in removing the organ immediately or if amputation could have been delayed to let Seaton seek other medical options. 

Judge Janet Stumbo and Judge Donna Dixon concluded that, even though Seaton had limited ability to read and write, he never informed the doctor of that fact and signed the consent form in the presence of a witness. The Seatons claimed that the waiver didn't give Patterson authority to conduct an amputation without further consent. 

"They maintain that no harm would have resulted if Dr. Patterson has consulted with either of them before proceeding, or if he had allowed them to consult with another physician to get a second opinion or other treatment options," Stumbo wrote. 

Stumbo wrote that Patterson acted properly because the tumor had consumed such a large section of the organ. 

"For this reason alone, the resection of the tumor was 'necessary and proper' in the context of inserting a catheter," Stumbo wrote.

I don't know about you, but I would want a choice in the matter, even if it might prove terminal. Whose life is it anyway? And people wonder why doctors think they are gods. It seems so do judges too.

Judge Michael Caperton dissented, but did not issue a written opinion.

He gets it.

Thank you for reading this blog.