I'm assuming the circumcision was necessary for some serious medical reason. And I'll go farther and assume (hope) the amputation was due to further complications while in surgery?
Every man's nightmare. Wow.
"When the plaintiff ... awoke from his aforesaid surgical procedure, his penis was amputated," according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs "never gave consent for the complete or partial amputation of (his) penis."
Efforts Tuesday evening to reach the man's attorney, John P. Graves, were unsuccessful.
Kate DeWitt Darden, vice president of marketing and communications at Baptist Health System, said they do not comment on who might or might not have been a patient and generally do not comment on pending litigation.
The lawsuit claims that the man was never provided with an explanation as to the medical necessity of an amputation nor was never warned the circumcision procedure could result in an amputation.
The man has suffered additional/extended pain and suffering during his recovery, has spent additional time in the hospital recovering, and has been caused to spend more money. The man's wife also claims loss of consortium.
Just imagine.
Or, actually, don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.