View Full Version : totally within his rights
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2104172.html?menu=news.quirkies
kristy J
18-01-2007, 23:15
Sorry but this guy should just get over it there are worst things that can happen.
catalicious
18-01-2007, 23:20
I agree completly I hate people who sue for stupid reasons.
And you normally when you have surgery sign a waiver saying that if something else in thought to be needed whilst you are under than its O.K.
What a di(k......LMAO sorry bout the Pun. :laughing: :laughing:
Gosh Im sad sometimes.
the_queen
18-01-2007, 23:22
kristy - I'm sure that if your clitoral hood was amputated without your consent, you wouldn't say there's "worst (sic) things that can happen"
Andrew, thanks for posting that. It will be interesting, if the man wins his suit, what the implications will be for RIC.
kristy J
18-01-2007, 23:25
i realy think the two are verry different,
i am assuming of course but it just sounds like he just wants money. i know many adults who have had a circ and non of them complain they lost feeling.
catalicious
18-01-2007, 23:26
Id like to think queen that if A doctor (who generally knows what they are doing) does something so YOU as his paitient being his priority doesnt have complications that I wouldnt complain.
He would be looking out for MY best interests not his own.
The paitients SEX life is no concern of the docs. The paitients life and health are his concern and if people complain over this they should really think about whats more important.
kristy J
18-01-2007, 23:31
so right.
he sounds a bit "wo is me"
the_queen
18-01-2007, 23:31
The foreskin and the clitoral hood are basically the same thing, physiologically.
Circumcision "to prevent complications" etc is a poor excuse though. He had an absess on his penis. If I had an absess on my labia that needed removing, a cliteredectomy would not be routinely done "to prevent complications". Why do men's genitals have less value?
kristy J
18-01-2007, 23:35
i guess im just pro circ.
I just asked DH what he thinks and he said the same.
he needs to get over it.
sorry Just my opinion
catalicious
18-01-2007, 23:39
We as normal people not doctors unless I have missed something.......
Dont know what type of complications can arise form having surgery there..
But I think a doc would know more than us..
Id hate it if my Privates where disfigured or mutilated Id feel the same if someone did it to dp, but I doubt the doc was like....
"well you know what, I dont like uncircumsised penis' so I am just going to do it for him to make me feel better"
Come on.... He would of had to explain his actions the minute the paitient woke up... And there are normally 2 or more docs in surgery that all would of had to agree on things like this ( my dp used to work in theatre (real life ops) to pass them the stuff).
I dont undervalue males genitals but its not like they cut it off completly that I would be open mouthed for but not something like this that could have 101 medical reasons why it was necessary.
hmmm, I'm a bit torn on this one.
I suppose it would depend on exactly where the absess was. Maybe it was close to the f/s???
But I can see why he wants to sue. If he has lost feelings that that would effect his sex life, that is an important part in one's life. Sex is part of everyones lives. I would be most upset if I lost some feelings down there.
As I said, I am a fence sitter on this one, there is a little lack of information for me to decide either way how I feel.
Mister Noodle
19-01-2007, 00:04
By the sound of it, it probably went something like this:
"the wound would be a little less infection-prone if it were able to dry out completely; lets just remove the foreskin and save ourselves the bother - it's not like he'd want it for anything"
Altogether too many people think of the foreskin as something you only have because you haven't got round to removing it yet - like wisdom teeth used to be.
I doubt very much that the doctor had an agenda - he just didn't see it as anything worth taking any effort to keep.
I dare say an eye abscess would heal with 'fewer complications' if you removed the eyelid, as well - but you can bet your life that surgeons would go to heroic lengths to avoid that.
Ange&Seth
19-01-2007, 00:23
I don't think there's enough info in that link to really be able to hypothesise about what the doctor was thinking. Are any of us surgeons? Can we make an educated guess as to what that particular Dr was thinking? I don't think so.
i realy think the two are verry different,
but they are not.
what is your reasoning?
SorenLorensen
19-01-2007, 09:30
their is not really enough info to be able for me to decide, i dont know where abouts they operated on his penis or anything to do with operating on a penis', and i am sure as heck not going to judge a man who devoted his life to the medical profession with out knowing the fact.
all i can say is he must really want his f/s
kristi001
19-01-2007, 10:01
:laughing: OH gawd what next honestly!!
THere is deffinately not enough information there for me to feel in any way sorry for that man.
As Hollywood said a patients sex life isnt that doctors concern!! The doctor isnt gaining anything out of it so why would he do it if he felt it wasnt neccessary at the time..
I bet if it got terrible infected and the whole thing well off he would sue for that too.
Just sounds like a person trying to make a quick buck like thousands of others have tried.
And honestly who knows that it wasnt the removal of the absyst that caused the loss of feeling!!
Mister Noodle
19-01-2007, 10:41
What do you mean it's not his concern?
Suppose you got a foreign body in your eye, and had a doctor remove it.
Is your vision his concern, or does his job begin and end with removing the splinter?
kristy J
19-01-2007, 11:16
question
Im not being nasty i just don't understand.
why are some men so against circ and some men really don't care???
its just a question so please don't jump at me.
the_queen
19-01-2007, 11:21
I guess some men who were circumcised as infants can't bring themselves to acknowledge that possibly there is something less-than-perfect about their penis.
kristy J
19-01-2007, 11:28
maybe some men.
noone i know.
well maybe in the future my son will sue me.:laughing:
OscarTheGrouch
19-01-2007, 11:48
I guess some men who were circumcised as infants can't bring themselves to acknowledge that possibly there is something less-than-perfect about their penis.
My DH (who is circ'd) thinks quite the opposite actually. But surprisingly he was totally against the idea of our boys being done.
jess_live_die
19-01-2007, 11:51
to be honest i think he should get ovet it its not like guys that have there foreskin removed when they are born have there sex life runied i think he realy needs to sit down and really think about it. it sounds crazy but i guess if i was in that spot id be mad too.
SorenLorensen
19-01-2007, 13:03
What do you mean it's not his concern?
Suppose you got a foreign body in your eye, and had a doctor remove it.
Is your vision his concern, or does his job begin and end with removing the splinter?
to answer your question
a doctors number one concern is your health,if you has something in your eye it would get infected and could also travel somewhere els other than just stay in your eye causing who knows how many other problems.
a doctor saves lives and that is their number 1 concern, your health is not something that can be played with. cosmetic issues come into it after your health is fixed.
yes this guy said he now has no feeling but who of us really know what would have happend if they had not touched his f/s, i dont know how anyone is able to judge a doctor when we dont know what the situation was.
no way- i think he is so right!!!
it canīt be, that a doc decides what he wants to do, just because it is easier for HIM as a surgeon.
the german health system is still like this at times, unfortunately!!! (i should know that i had 2 kids there...)
so, good on him- hope this will teach them, thinking they are still gods in white....smart-ar**es *getting cranky now...*
the_queen
19-01-2007, 16:39
Great point Lila!
A little joke from cynical little me:
What's the difference between God and a doctor?
God never thought he was a doctor.....
:)
lukaelmo
19-01-2007, 16:46
Umm my little boy has had two operations so far, and with both of them the procedure was thoroughly discussed with myself and DP, so we knew exactly what would be done.
If Luka's surgeon had done anything he had not discussed with us, unless of course it was a life threatening situation, I would have been very very angry indeed.
luckymama
19-01-2007, 16:52
from what i read from the article, it said the dr removed the foreskin to prevent furthur complications, isnt that what we all want drs to do? Anything they can to prevent furthur problems? The dr was just doing his job.
from what i read from the article, it said the dr removed the foreskin to prevent furthur complications, isnt that what we all want drs to do? Anything they can to prevent furthur problems? The dr was just doing his job.
The doctor was told one thing and did another. We put so much trust in these people - we literally trust them with our lives!! I don't think they should do ANYTHING without first consulting us. Anything.
I think he has the right to sue the doctor for this. Sure, the doctor had a reason but it still wasn't necessary or even discussed beforehand! How would you feel if you had surgery for an ear infection and woke up without your ear lobe? Sure, it may have been removed to avoid complications but you weren't prepared to lose a part of your body that has always been with you!
Perhaps he would have preferred to have complications and then have elective surgery to remove the foreskin if it became necessary.
My point is, the doctor should have had consent and he clearly didn't so i think the man has a right to sue for the cost if fixing it.
the_queen
19-01-2007, 17:15
Hypothetical situation: a woman has an emergency c-section, very touch and go situation. To prevent further complications, the surgeon performs a hysterectomy.
Needed or not, you'd be angry, right?
You'd want to find out whether it was really necessary, or medical negligence, right?
I guess this man has had no luck getting answers from the hospital, so has had to resort to legal action in order to find out the whole truth.
Mister Noodle
19-01-2007, 17:17
Hi. Doctor's brat checking in.
Doctors are human beings like anyone else. They have exactly the same rate of selfishness, stupidity, laziness, callousness, arrogance, absent-mindedness and every other human failing as the rest of the community.
You can't make assumptions either way. Trust me, I know enough of them.
They've no more 'devoted their lives to medicine' than a plumber has 'devoted his life to drains'. There's some incredibly kind, wise and dedicated doctors out there, and there's just as many horrible and stupid ones.
If you go in for knee surgery, get a big permanent marker and write "NOT THIS LEG" on the other side. I'm not kidding.
Trust professionals - but count your change anyway.
wfm: if you break your leg, there could be all kinds of complications with the healing process. Infections, pressure sores, joint problems, the works. If you woke up to discover that your doctor had just amputated your leg to avoid all these, you wouldn't exactly be in a hurry to thank him. Same deal here. You expect people to try a whole lot harder before doing anything irrevocable.
At the very least, if it were unexpectedly necessary, the possibility should have been discussed before the operation. That's basic medical ethics.
misskittyfantastico
19-01-2007, 17:20
I think he has the right to sue the doctor for this. Sure, the doctor had a reason but it still wasn't necessary or even discussed beforehand! How would you feel if you had surgery for an ear infection and woke up without your ear lobe? Sure, it may have been removed to avoid complications but you weren't prepared to lose a part of your body that has always been with you!
Perhaps he would have preferred to have complications and then have elective surgery to remove the foreskin if it became necessary.
My point is, the doctor should have had consent and he clearly didn't so i think the man has a right to sue for the cost if fixing it.
I agree whole heartedly.
I would be MOST annoyed if a doctor breeched my trust in such a way.
Doctors don't know everything! They are regular human beings....with their own bias.
ETA - what Mr Noodle said. Dognammit that's twice in one day!
our little treasures
19-01-2007, 17:24
I think he has the right to sue the doctor for this. Sure, the doctor had a reason but it still wasn't necessary or even discussed beforehand! How would you feel if you had surgery for an ear infection and woke up without your ear lobe? Sure, it may have been removed to avoid complications but you weren't prepared to lose a part of your body that has always been with you!
Perhaps he would have preferred to have complications and then have elective surgery to remove the foreskin if it became necessary.
My point is, the doctor should have had consent and he clearly didn't so i think the man has a right to sue for the cost if fixing it.
I have to agree. A doctor will say anything to get out of his/her mistake!
As goes for his sex life absolutely it does affect the stimulation there is many research on this!!
I hope he gets a fortune, poor man!!
sam's mum
19-01-2007, 18:37
If you go in for knee surgery, get a big permanent marker and write "NOT THIS LEG" on the other side. I'm not kidding.
What's great about this example, is that I did this.
When the doctor went through the pre-op discussion he kept talking about my right knee. Every time he said right I would correct him and say left. He would say, Oh yes.
After he left I was little hysterical (I was only 16 and alone in hospital) and so the only way the nurse got me to calm down was to get a nikko pen and write on my other leg.
good point queen-
thatīs exactly what nearly happend to me THERE (with my 2nd em c/s i had a UR and i was asked by my GYNO later, why they didnīt do my tubes ....ummmm)
i would sue their A**es off- sorry i am usually a VERY calm person, but this really gets to me....(well, he wonīt get a lot anyway, after all it is only germany and not the us...)
kristi001
19-01-2007, 18:53
The doctor was told one thing and did another. We put so much trust in these people - we literally trust them with our lives!! I don't think they should do ANYTHING without first consulting us. Anything.
I didnt see where the patient said not to take the forskin.. POint it out if i am wrong!! :)
Well next time someone gets into a serious accident and the doctor has to remove a body part from fear of complications or infections. He better wake the patient up and ask for his permission!! If he dies in the process then its ok!! As long as he doesnt get sued!!
Honestly i hope this guy gets NOTHING!! it will only make way for more silly people to sue for silly reasons!!
Who is going to want to be a doctor if they are going to be sued by every Tom d!ck and harry that comes by!!! :banghead:
tanni_83
19-01-2007, 18:57
it says "But while he was under the knife his doctor, unnamed for legal reasons, also chose to remove his foreskin to prevent complications"
and if he didnt remove it and there were further complications he would also sue
i think its ****
I dont believe there is enough information in that article for me to be able to comment on either side.
Give me the transcripts of what was said by the surgeon to the patient before operating re: risks, complication possibilities and resolutions etc and i'll comment then, but not before.
Hypothetical situation: a woman has an emergency c-section, very touch and go situation. To prevent further complications, the surgeon performs a hysterectomy.
Needed or not, you'd be angry, right?
You'd want to find out whether it was really necessary, or medical negligence, right?
I guess this man has had no luck getting answers from the hospital, so has had to resort to legal action in order to find out the whole truth.
I would be upset that I no longer had a uterus and was unable to have more children BUT I woudl be a heck of a lot happier to be alive
Think this man should get over it. If there are complications he could lose his entire willy so lets be grateful its just foreskin. some people are a bit too sensitive about penises. If I had my clitoral hood removed yes i would feel a bit weird BUT im alive and dont have hideous complications
What do they say...prevention is better than a cure. I do believe thats the saying
I didnt see where the patient said not to take the forskin.. POint it out if i am wrong!! :)
Umm.. I didn't see where he said to take the foreskin. It's HIS FORESKIN!!!
I would be upset that I no longer had a uterus and was unable to have more children BUT I woudl be a heck of a lot happier to be alive
but what if you didn't need your uterus taken out. It was in case of complications - not because their were any..?
i would rather lose my uterus to save the chance of losing my life yes and its fine to say now that its un necessary because we dont know. There are plenty of what ifs. Who are we to say that if the foreskin was left there that he wouldnt have got an infection and his willy fallen off? You cant deny it. it could happen. Im sure having no willy rather than a willy without a hat is better
***offtopic text deleted***
The wording of the article states it was to prevent complications - not due to..
So he may have an an infect, he could have the CHOICE to deal with that when it came to it.
FWIW - I'm not anti-circ at all. I'm pro-make-your-own-mind-up-about-YOUR-body.
our little treasures
19-01-2007, 20:10
It is his body and what right does another person have to go and make decisions without discussing it with them. This guy would not being sueing the DR if he had signed papers saying if complications arise I will do this. He wouldn't have a leg to stand on seriously I think this man wasn't consulted.
It is his body and noone should do any procedure to anyone unless they have said it is ok!!
I would be seriously ****ed off. I can totally understand where this guy is coming from.
The fact is that the doctor could have lanced the abcess and cleaned up the area and then taken a 'wait and see' approach to see if any complications were to arise. If there were complications then they could have discussed circumcision or any other options with the patient in question. It's not like it was a life and death situation.
I totally agree that the foreskin is undervalued, and that is probably why the doctor decided that it wouldn't matter if he removed it. It's not like circumcision is a cosmetic issue. :thumbsdown:
reAllytee
19-01-2007, 22:38
I think more info needs to be known to make an serious comments about this otherwise we are all just speculating.
Sometimes patients get angry & want to blame someone. Sometimes there is fair call for this but sometimes its actually the doctor who has done right & either way he is damned.
No wonder doctors are worried about being sued.
the medic that i live with tells me that doctors simply do not have the power to make such decisions.
even if the case was masectomy of a woman who has breast cancer, the risks are, and should be explained to her, and even in this extreme case, although many women would be happy to go ahead with the treatment, there are those that would not be. A doctor cannot simply go ahead with it.
your body, your choice.
perhaps the reason that many men do not " complain" about being circumcised is that they know they will simply be told to "get over it".. etc etc etc .
Only an intact man can really appreciate what circumcised men have been through.
circumcision is not a case of pros vs cons, which i understand is a totally personal opinion. It is a question of rights.
i,e nobody but the person who owns the penis has the right to decide which parts to amputate from it.
Daddy2Angels
20-01-2007, 01:11
hehehe
Kinda reminds me of that guy when his wife cut his doodle off and they reattached it :laughing:
PunkyDiva
20-01-2007, 01:34
Bit of a hijack, sorry.
The big C is personal choice when you're an adult and like vaccinating an issue that many parents stress over for the future well being of their children.
My DH just told me about an interesting article he read in a medical journal. We will try and find it and post it.
The short of it was that trials were done in US(others done in Uganda etc specifically for HIV transmission were also conclusive that it reduces chances significantly) that showed circumcision significantly reduces chances of cervical cancer, HIV, infections and lotsa other things by more then 61%, which is the effectiveness of vaccinations. Because of this, and as per rules of medical trials that prove conclusive, all participants in the trials were offerred circumcision.
DH and boyz are not c'd but this is certainly food for thought.
Comment about chopping off our breasts, woman who have family history of aggressive breast cancer do choose to have removal and reconstruction just so they don't ever "get" cancer and can carry on their life without a dormant time bomb.
Comment about chopping off our breasts, woman who have family history of aggressive breast cancer do choose to have removal and reconstruction just so they don't ever "get" cancer and can carry on their life without a dormant time bomb.
yes they often DO make that choice. and lucky for them they HAVE that choice to make.
lucky for them, and every woman who has not been masectomised as birth, that their parents did not think that it was a "personal choice" for them to make.
Women with a family history of breast cancer are certainly not forced to make that choice, and there are those that do not.
They are certainly not masectomised routinely at birth, even though this would ABSOLUTELY save lives.
everybody accepts that nobody has the power to make this choice apart from the woman concerned.
exactly the same logic applies to those members of the species that happen to have a Y chromosome.
or at least....it should.
MotherNurture
20-01-2007, 09:36
kristy - I'm sure that if your clitoral hood was amputated without your consent, you wouldn't say there's "worst (sic) things that can happen"
i realy think the two are verry different,
i am assuming of course but it just sounds like he just wants money. i know many adults who have had a circ and non of them complain they lost feeling.
Actually, they're analogous structures, medically.
Male prepuce: Foreskin
Female prepuce: Clitoral Hood
Click on "Genital Development" (http://www.sickkids.ca/childphysiology/cpwp/Genital/genitaldevelopment.htm)
They develop from the exact same embryonic tissue, and perform the same primary function which is to protect the glans (glans penis & glans clitoris respectively), keeping the surface skin slightly moist, thin, and ultra-sensitive.
Without that protection, a process called keratinization begins, where the skin of the glans (mucousal skin now exposed to air and clothing) begins to dry and thicken. It's similar to what would happen to your feet if you went barefoot all summer. Or, what would happen to your eyes if your eyelid were removed. Or, what would happen to your tongue and gums if you suddenly found yourself without lips.
Circumcision is a significant & irreversible change.
In addition, an adult foreskin contains specialized structures like the ridged band and frenulum (male g-spot) and 3-4 feet of blood vessels, 240 feet of nerves, and tens of thousands of specialized nerve endings.
He's quoted as saying, "When I woke up I almost passed out again with shock. I never said they could take that. And now I have almost no feeling in the tip - my sex life has been totally ruined." I don't think this man is just suing for money, I think he's experienced a significant loss-that his penis has been damaged-IMO, rightly so. Something was taken from him, without his consent and he wants it back.
Interestingly, he is not the first (publically known person) to sue for foreskin restoration. Paul Tinari-a brilliant, highly educated man from Vancouver, BC-also sued...SUCCESSFULLY!
Watch the interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvVAh1-8ba8
Jen
MotherNurture
20-01-2007, 09:57
What do you mean it's not his concern?
Suppose you got a foreign body in your eye, and had a doctor remove it.
Is your vision his concern, or does his job begin and end with removing the splinter?
Well said, as usual, MisterNoodle!
question
Im not being nasty i just don't understand.
why are some men so against circ and some men really don't care???
its just a question so please don't jump at me.
I think level of knowledge regarding the anatomy & physiology of the foreskin has a LOT to do with it. I read in a previous post you described yourself as pro-circ, so I wanted to ask you you'd ever seen the online presentation that explains the anatomy & functions of the body part in question, "The Prepuce"?
If you click HERE (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/) and scroll down 2/3 of the way you'll see it under, "Medical School Curriculum". It's about 20 minutes long. If you decide to watch it, I'd love to read your post-viewing thoughts.
The Vulnerability of Men (http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/vincent/vulnerability_of_men.html), by Vincent Bach also gives some interesting insights into why circumcised men are often so adamant about circumcising their sons.
maybe some men.
noone i know.
well maybe in the future my son will sue me.:laughing:
You may not want to be so flippant. Times are changing.
Attorney's for the Rights of the Child (http://arclaw.org/)
Know Your Rights (http://www.noharmm.org/knowrights.htm)
Jen
<Still trying to catch up...>
MilkOnTap
21-01-2007, 23:22
a doctor saves lives and that is their number 1 concern
.....
yes this guy said he now has no feeling but who of us really know what would have happend if they had not touched his f/s
The wording of the article states it was to prevent complications - not due to [complications]..
As someone who has been under the knife and been devoid of a reproductive organ WITHOUT being offered an alternative first (methotrexate to treat an ectopic), I do understand where this man is coming from. But think of the alternate consequences...
If the doctor had chosen to given me a metho shot instead of removing my tube then the risk of having another ectopic pregnancy would increase. This gentleman's doctor had the same call to make - if he left the foreskin there was a higher risk of further complications. In my situation the surgeon reduced the risk by cutting out my tube. In this gentleman's case the surgeon reduced the risk by removing the foreskin.
Unfortunately for me my surgeon didnt remove the ENTIRE tube - and I DID go on to have further complications. A SECOND ectopic implanted itself in what remained of the original tube and then ruptured - thus causing internal bleeding, loss of blood, emotional damage from loss of yet another baby, and a longer recovery period.
If this gentleman's surgeon DIDN'T remove the foreskin, 'what if' another abscyss grew and more of his penis had to be removed? Isn't it simpler to remove the foreskin first to reduce the risk of further complications later on?
For me, I wish my surgeon had removed my ENTIRE tube the first time. Perhaps I now wouldn't have to endure the scars (physical and emotional) of having suffered a second loss.
MotherNurture
22-01-2007, 03:03
Pink Lady,
Why weren't you given your options regarding the ectopic? You should have been able to weigh the benefits/risks of the treatment options for yourself. It's your body. Your life. You're fertility. Your risk.
Would it not be possible, even if you were unconscious, for the doctor to give the least invasive form of treatment if your life were in danger? Could you not still opt for removal of the affected fallopian tube at a later date?
Circumcision is so often described as a quick & simple surgery, even for adults it can be done with local anesthetic. What on earth would have been wrong with allowing this man to come out of the anesthesia and giving him his options? All they would have to do is numb up his penis if he decided to opt for foreskin amputation.
Jen
MilkOnTap
22-01-2007, 08:11
Why weren't you given your options regarding the ectopic? You should have been able to weigh the benefits/risks of the treatment options for yourself. It's your body. Your life. You're fertility. Your risk.
Thanks Jens - Yes I know it is my fertility. Probably why it took us so long to conceive. I need no reminder of that fact.
I didn't understand what an ectopic pregnancy was at the time - so didn't even KNOW that another solution such as methotraxate could have been offered. However, when you are laying flat on a bed, unable to move, know nothing about ectopic pregnancies, told you have a 2hr operation ahead, fearing for your own life due to a rupture, and processing the emotional loss of your first child - you are certainly in no state to be able to 'weigh benefits/risks'. I imagine the gentleman in the article would have been feeling much similar; 'someone is about to perform surgery on my penis' - not a comforting factor at all.
However in my situation (probably very similar to the gentleman in the article) my doctor knew best. He knew that removal of the tube (or foreskin) would reduce the risk of further complications later on.
The only problem in my situation was that the ENTIRE tube wasn't removed - just the part with the embryo implanted within. If the ENTIRE tube had been removed then I wouldn't have HAD a second ectopic.
My concern for the gentleman in the article is that without removal of his foreskin, the complications further down the track could be horrible - much like what I experienced with my second ectopic - with a pain factor much much worse than the first. I cant even remember going through triage - I just remember waking up and seeing a tube coming out of my belly draining blood from the rupture into a bucket beside me.
Can you imagine what I went through when trying to conceive again? It was a nightmare! I was terrified of yet ANOTHER ectopic pregnancy...
Personally; I am relieved to be alive and that the second ectopic didn't kill me; even more relieved that I have now conceived a healthy pregnancy. The gentleman in the article should be relieved to still have his genitalia - perhaps not all of it, and yes it may not feel exactly how it should; but he is alive and has a lower chance of complications. THIS is what should be focused on...
MotherNurture
22-01-2007, 08:31
With ectopics, there are two main treatment options. One is not necessarily better than the other; the opinions of doctors vary based on their personal experiences and philosophies. The choices of informed women, based on their own feelings regarding risk and their future plans for more children vary as well. This isn't a cut and dry 'doctor knows best' kind of situation. Obviously, your doctor didn't know best for in your case as you would have preferred to have the entire tube removed. One of my dear friends who experienced an ectopic was never given a choice regarding methotrexate either; she learned about it after the fact and given her own circumstance and beliefs, she would have opted against the surgery. Nobody knows for sure what the future holds, but as patients we deserve to be given our options in a fair and unbiased manner as long as we're mentally competent and it's not a life-or-death situation where we're not capable of choosing.
The man from the article had his foreskin removed without his consent, in non-emergent circumstances. The doctor decided to do it without consulting him. This would be like going in for an absess on your labia and coming out with your clitoral hood removed and your clitoris left exposed for the rest of your life just because the doctor thought a few less folds would decrease your risk of this or that.
It's not anyone's place to tell him what he should be focused on, to get over it, etc. For him, being circumcised has been a significant, unexpected to, unconsented to LOSS. Not only did he loose the nerves in his foreskin, but his glans is becoming dry and desensitized because it no longer has any protection...a guarenteed result of foreskin amputation. He has every right to question the necessity of what was done to him under, apparently, non-emergent circumstances. The penis is an external organ. They could have let him wake up, explained the situation, the risks, and the options and offered to numb him up locally for the additional procedure if that's what HE wanted. It wasn't the doctor's choice to make. It was his body, his risk, his penis, his sexuality.
Jen
MilkOnTap
22-01-2007, 10:32
Jen - I can only assume that you have never had a part of your own reproductive system damaged or removed. Once you have that happen and are told that it was to 'prevent further complications' then perhaps a bit more understanding would come into play.
I do not need a lecture on the in's and out's of an ectopic pregnancy. I have first hand experience (x2) which is more than enough.
catalicious
22-01-2007, 10:44
This would be like going in for an absess on your labia and coming out with your clitoral hood removed and your clitoris left exposed for the rest of your life just because the doctor thought a few less folds would decrease your risk of this or that.
Well having it not hidden would make a few things easier for some...:o
Lol, sorry just trying to ease the animosity a little in here.
Jen - I can only assume that you have never had a part of your own reproductive system damaged or removed. Once you have that happen and are told that it was to 'prevent further complications' then perhaps a bit more understanding would come into play.
I do not need a lecture on the in's and out's of an ectopic pregnancy. I have first hand experience (x2) which is more than enough.
:hugs: :hugs: :hugs: :hugs:
MilkOnTap
22-01-2007, 11:29
Pink Lady, i think you may of missed the point that Jen was trying to make here.
...
Look at it in another way. If your Doctor had chosen to remove your entire tube instead of just part of it, and then you had extreme difficulty in becoming pregnant because of this reason, i can bet, you would be outraged that it was done without your consent and only done because the doctor thought it was best.
No - I see the point perfectly. Jen is standing up for this man who is obviously well within his right to be upset that his foreskin was removed WITHOUT his prior consent. I understand that and even applaud it.
However - the man in question needs to be made fully aware of the further complications that 'may' have resulted had his foreskin remained in place. In my situation had the doctor removed the ENTIRE tube (instead of the portion with the baby in it) then I wouldn't have suffered a second ectopic pregnancy.
I have been there - I know what its like to be on the other end of wondering why a doctor didn't 'finish the job'. To me the doctor SHOULD have removed the ENTIRE tube.
My concern for this gentleman is that IF further complications were come to pass, then he would then blame the doctor for not having removed the foreskin in the first place. Surely loss of the foreskin now is much better than possibly losing his entire penis (or life) later on?
ETA - If I were to go on to have problems TTC it would have happened with or without that tube
Great post pink lady!:yelclap:
kristi001
22-01-2007, 13:45
:banghead: Everybody is saying it was an unneccesary procedure!!
But it was darn Neccesary!!
To prevent Further Complcations!!!
These Complications could have been a 50/50 Chance that this man was Going to have his Whole Penis Fall Off, lose alot of blood and Possible Die!!
And NO ONE can say that this is not what the Doctor may have been thinking!!!
Mabey just Mabey some Men believe there is much More IMPORTANT things in life then their Forskin!!
And Mabey MotherNurchure You might care more about this subject then Alot of men do!! :o
pookiesossige
22-01-2007, 14:29
I guess this man has had no luck getting answers from the hospital, so has had to resort to legal action in order to find out the whole truth.
VERY good point. He deserves to know, and that doctor/the hospital should give him ALL their reasons for doing what they did to his penis.
They've no more 'devoted their lives to medicine' than a plumber has 'devoted his life to drains'. There's some incredibly kind, wise and dedicated doctors out there, and there's just as many horrible and stupid ones.
wfm: if you break your leg, there could be all kinds of complications with the healing process. Infections, pressure sores, joint problems, the works. If you woke up to discover that your doctor had just amputated your leg to avoid all these, you wouldn't exactly be in a hurry to thank him. Same deal here. You expect people to try a whole lot harder before doing anything irrevocable.
At the very least, if it were unexpectedly necessary, the possibility should have been discussed before the operation. That's basic medical ethics.
This post sums it all up for me. I get cranky when people put on their blinkers and naively state that "they're the doctor, they know best". Reminds me of my elderly clients that would NEVER consider going to another doctor for a 2nd opinion.. "But he's a DOCTOR- I don't need to see another one!" (plus all the usual worries about hurting their usual doc's feelings.... gotta love it!)
These Complications could have been a 50/50 Chance that this man was Going to have his Whole Penis Fall Off, lose alot of blood and Possible Die!!
I must have missed that bit....
If a doctor breeched my trust in such a way, then I'd be suing too. Good on him.
kristi001
22-01-2007, 16:55
:laughing: ROFL. Same here..
Oh i also missed the part where i said thats what happened.. :p
Everyone is going by the fact this Doctor had No reasons for doing what he did.. It only states" to prevent Complication"
What could those complications be.. Do they outway the benifit of keeping the forskin??
No one KNows!!
And belive it or not YOu DoNT!!! :banghead:
Mabey you should actually read the whole post first :D
Oh i also missed the part where i said thats what happened.. :p
Everyone is going by the fact this Doctor had No reasons for doing what he did.. It only states" to prevent Complication"
What could those complications be.. Do they outway the benifit of keeping the forskin??
No one KNows!!
And belive it or not YOu DoNT!!! :banghead:
Mabey you should actually read the whole post first :D
there's a difference in "prevent" and "due to"
MotherNurture
22-01-2007, 17:30
Jen - I can only assume that you have never had a part of your own reproductive system damaged or removed. Once you have that happen and are told that it was to 'prevent further complications' then perhaps a bit more understanding would come into play.
I do not need a lecture on the in's and out's of an ectopic pregnancy. I have first hand experience (x2) which is more than enough.
I do think you misunderstood me; Really, my posts used the example of ectopic, since it was brought up, to illustrate that doctors don't always know best, that when there are several treatment options patients deserve full, informed consent so they can make the decision for themselves. My friend also had a tube removed, and she learned later about methotrexate and resented not being fully informed of her options.
Also, while I haven't experienced a tubal pregnancy I have experienced a miscarriage of my first pregnancy at 11 1/2 weeks-very much wanted and planned-with a D&C under general anesthesia, and subsequent infertility relating to suspected PCOS. Certainly it's not the same, but I have known the heartache of pregnancy loss and infertility and I would never make light of another woman's experiences and struggles.
Jen
I dont think anyone here is saying that doctor's always know best. We are all simply saying that there are pros and cons to the situation. We can see both sides-which I personally think is a good thing since the article is extremely vague and offers very little information-however a lot of people seem to only see things in a one sided way...
the_queen
22-01-2007, 20:21
Oh i also missed the part where i said thats what happened.. :p
Everyone is going by the fact this Doctor had No reasons for doing what he did.. It only states" to prevent Complication"
What could those complications be.. Do they outway the benifit of keeping the forskin??
No one KNows!!
And belive it or not YOu DoNT!!! :banghead:
Mabey you should actually read the whole post first :D
Obviously when the patient tried to get some answers about what the possible complications could be, or whether or not the benefits outweighed the risks, nobody from the hospital would give him a straight answer. So he's pursuing legal action to have an independant third party find out the truth.
Obviously when the patient tried to get some answers about what the possible complications could be, or whether or not the benefits outweighed the risks, nobody from the hospital would give him a straight answer. So he's pursuing legal action to have an independant third party find out the truth.
Where does it say that in the article? Or do yu have another source?
the_queen
22-01-2007, 20:31
Oh I'm just assuming, which is what everyone else is also doing when they say "the doctor knew best and the complications could have led to penile amputation" :rolleyes:
I don't see how anyone could think he was "just suing for the money" from that article. The article suggests the sueing is for the reconstructive surgery funds. Given the limited information it seems odd to extrapolate on such an unimportant part anyway.
The doctor had a duty to remove an abscess. When the patient woke up the doctor had another duty: to inform the patient of the results of the surgery; including any special care, follow ups, or problems. This post surgery rundown (which any good surgeon should do) was the time when removal of the foreskin should have been discussed.
In my surgery this is how it worked. I was grateful. A year later it turned out I needed the second op. as more had to be removed. I made that choice and I've never even considered it a possibility that it wasn't mine to make. The second op. actually left me with problems, and if the first surgeon had taken it upon himself to "do it while he was there" I would have sued him. If only to make him responsible for his actions, and put that mark against his name to warn others.
Someone close to me didn't have so considerate/wise a surgeon. Their surgeon took "a bit more" to make healing faster, leave less room for infection - without speaking to the patient. If he had asked the patient he would have known that the risk outweighed the benefits. That "tiny bit more" is ruining the patient's life. I wish he'd sue, I'd be a witness.
Ashleigh<3
22-01-2007, 21:39
Hypothetical situation: a woman has an emergency c-section, very touch and go situation. To prevent further complications, the surgeon performs a hysterectomy.
Needed or not, you'd be angry, right?
You'd want to find out whether it was really necessary, or medical negligence, right?
I guess this man has had no luck getting answers from the hospital, so has had to resort to legal action in order to find out the whole truth.
Spot on.
The Doctor removed the man's foreskin for his own reasons. He wanted to prevent further complications.
In my opinion, for a doctor to perform a surgical operation such as circumcision on a man without his consent, that man has every right to be ****ed off.
It's exactly the same as 'the queens' example of a woman having a c-section, Doctor performing a hysterectomy to prevent further complicated c-sections.
I actually feel sorry for this man. :(
catalicious
22-01-2007, 22:18
Hypothetical situation: a woman has an emergency c-section, very touch and go situation. To prevent further complications, the surgeon performs a hysterectomy.
Needed or not, you'd be angry, right?
You'd want to find out whether it was really necessary, or medical negligence, right?
I guess this man has had no luck getting answers from the hospital, so has had to resort to legal action in order to find out the whole truth.
That hypothetical in my opinion doesnt even belong here.
It is COMPLETLY different, I have already expressed my views on the subject earlier on and have just been peeking back in from time to time.
But the above hypothetical is outrageous. Completly OUTRAGEOUS!.
It is one thing to remove a male or female foreskin, clitoral hood whatever.
It is a COMPLETLY different thing to give a woman a hysterectomy. Being circumsized doesnt make someone infertile having a hysterectomy does..
WAY WAY WAY OFF!!!
the_queen
22-01-2007, 22:22
That hypothetical in my opinion doesnt even belong here.
It is COMPLETLY different, I have already expressed my views on the subject earlier on and have just been peeking back in from time to time.
But the above hypothetical is outrageous. Completly OUTRAGEOUS!.
It is one thing to remove a male or female foreskin, clitoral hood whatever.
It is a COMPLETLY different thing to give a woman a hysterectomy. Being circumsized doesnt make someone infertile having a hysterectomy does..
WAY WAY WAY OFF!!!
Obviously a touchy subject for you, sorry if I offended you :hugs:
Genital integrity is also a very touchy subject for men.
I think you missed my point though - it's not about what purpose the removed body part played. I'm saying that if a very very important part of your body was removed for suspect reasons, wouldn't you be angry and want some answers?
catalicious
22-01-2007, 22:22
In my opinion, for a doctor to perform a surgical operation such as circumcision on a man without his consent, that man has every right to be ****ed off.
It's exactly the same as 'the queens' example of a woman having a c-section, Doctor performing a hysterectomy to prevent further complicated c-sections.
. :(
No where near similar, no where at all
That hypothetical in my opinion doesnt even belong here.
It is COMPLETLY different, I have already expressed my views on the subject earlier on and have just been peeking back in from time to time.
But the above hypothetical is outrageous. Completly OUTRAGEOUS!.
It is one thing to remove a male or female foreskin, clitoral hood whatever.
It is a COMPLETLY different thing to give a woman a hysterectomy. Being circumsized doesnt make someone infertile having a hysterectomy does..
WAY WAY WAY OFF!!!
good point hollywood :smiliedance: :yelclap:
But the above hypothetical is outrageous. Completly OUTRAGEOUS!.
It is one thing to remove a male or female foreskin, clitoral hood whatever.
It is a COMPLETLY different thing to give a woman a hysterectomy. Being circumsized doesnt make someone infertile having a hysterectomy does..
The doctor doesn't have the right to clip my fingernails without my permission. This isn't a case of "less wrong" or "more wrong" just "wrong"
Thats fair enough blue gin I can understand how you would feel violated if anything happened but hollywood was simply outlining the fact that the comparison between a woman having a historectomy and a man losing foreskin is completely ludicrous
I can see where Hollywood was coming from sure, but I think the_Queen was comparing the fact that both were wrong, it's just easier for us to see the hysterectomy as wrong.
Apologies if I'm messing too much with your words Queen :o
catalicious
22-01-2007, 22:28
Obviously a touchy subject for you, sorry if I offended you :hugs:
Genital integrity is also a very touchy subject for men.
I think you missed my point though - it's not about what purpose the removed body part played. I'm saying that if a very very important part of your body was removed for suspect reasons, wouldn't you be angry and want some answers?
Thanks.... I agree that if I woke up to have no uterus etc... I would be most displeased I just however dont consider it anywhere near the same ball park as a circumsision..
I do see your point though..
the_queen
22-01-2007, 22:41
Thanks.... I agree that if I woke up to have no uterus etc... I would be most displeased I just however dont consider it anywhere near the same ball park as a circumsision..
I do see your point though..
And men (in general) wouldn't see a hysterectomy as being in the same ball park as a circumcision.
This is his penis we're talking about - difficult for women to perhaps understand the enormity of what has been taken from him. Comparing it to our uterus' and clitoral hoods gives us a bit of an understanding of how much it means to him. Obviously it is a very very big deal to this guy, and yet some women on this thread have said things like "it's just a foreskin" and "he should get over it".
Imagine if a man said to a woman after a hysterectomy "it's just a uterus" and "she should get over it".
just because some men are extra sensitive to their foreskin doesnt make it comparible to a woman losing her uterus. You take away a woman's uterus you take away her ability to have children of her own. That is enormous! You take away a man's foreskin you take away his ability to.......:no:
its just not a comparitable subject
ShadyCharacter
22-01-2007, 23:23
:banghead: Everybody is saying it was an unneccesary procedure!!
But it was darn Neccesary!!
To prevent Further Complcations!!!
These Complications could have been a 50/50 Chance that this man was Going to have his Whole Penis Fall Off, lose alot of blood and Possible Die!!
Yes, however unlikely, those *may* have been the *possible* complications. But unless there was a risk the man was going to die right there on the operating table (extremely unlikely), he should have been given the CHOICE.
Pobblebonk
23-01-2007, 08:09
I think that if I were this guy, I'd be a more than annoyed about having my foreskin removed without my permission, which I think is what the whole point of article is, and why he is suing. I mean, he wouldn't sue the doctor if they had already discussed it and the patient gave his consent, right?
People (because babies are people, too) who have their foreskin's removed as babies, well, really, they don't know what they're missing. They've had a circ'd penis from such a young age that their penis deems this as 'normal' and for his whole life it adapts to this new situation.
It would be completely different for a 50 year old man who'd had his foreskin his entire life, had it removed at that age, well, no wonder he notices a difference in sexual feeling.
Poor fella.
MotherNurture
23-01-2007, 11:37
That hypothetical in my opinion doesnt even belong here.
It is COMPLETLY different, I have already expressed my views on the subject earlier on and have just been peeking back in from time to time.
But the above hypothetical is outrageous. Completly OUTRAGEOUS!.
It is one thing to remove a male or female foreskin, clitoral hood whatever.
It is a COMPLETLY different thing to give a woman a hysterectomy. Being circumsized doesnt make someone infertile having a hysterectomy does..
WAY WAY WAY OFF!!!
Sexuality encompasses far more than fertility. People have different hopes and dreams and goals in life. They place different value on different possibilities, experiences, and activities.
For a woman who was perhaps done having children or was very open/positive about adoption, a hysterectomy might not be the end of the world to her. Likewise, there are some men out there who chose circumcision electively, and many who were circumcised at birth who don't question it, give it much thought, or lament it's possible effects on their sexual function & pleasure. There are probably many men who would gladly sacrifice fertility for better sex; probably many women who also feel that way. All the more reason that individuals make these very intimate choices/medical decisions for themselves.
Waking up missing something you weren't informed about the possibility of loosing may have traumatic and long-lasting effects, whether it's an issue of fertility, sexual function, or any other part of yourself you previously used, valued, and enjoyed the benefits of posessing.
just because some men are extra sensitive to their foreskin doesnt make it comparible to a woman losing her uterus. You take away a woman's uterus you take away her ability to have children of her own. That is enormous! You take away a man's foreskin you take away his ability to.......:no:
its just not a comparitable subject
The broader point her is it's not anyone's place to determine the value of a body part for another person. This is one of the core reasons why I don't think infant circumcision ethically belongs within the realm of parental choice.
People (because babies are people, too) who have their foreskin's removed as babies, well, really, they don't know what they're missing. They've had a circ'd penis from such a young age that their penis deems this as 'normal' and for his whole life it adapts to this new situation.
It would be completely different for a 50 year old man who'd had his foreskin his entire life, had it removed at that age, well, no wonder he notices a difference in sexual feeling.
I read this and the saying, "Tis' better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all." immediately came to mind.
Jen
The broader point her is it's not anyone's place to determine the value of a body part for another person.
Jen
I know what the broader point here is. He is more than entitled to feel al oss for his foreskin however please understand my point in saying it is not correct to compare the loss of a uterus to the loss of foreskin.
And It appears that you are doing a very good job in determining the importance of someone else's foreskin throughout this thread.
MotherNurture
23-01-2007, 17:26
I know what the broader point here is. He is more than entitled to feel al oss for his foreskin however please understand my point in saying it is not correct to compare the loss of a uterus to the loss of foreskin.
The value of an individual's body parts is subjective; whether an individual values fertility over sexual pleasure simply isn't black and white.
For instance, we're reasonably sure we're done having children and are considering sterilization, yet I may have 50 or more years of life and sexual activity ahead of me. Right now, if I had to choose between the loss of my uterus or my clitoral hood, I'd probably give up my uterus. My uterus is no longer useful to me; in fact, I can't say I'd mind being done with my menstrual cycles a few decades early.
And It appears that you are doing a very good job in determining the importance of someone else's foreskin throughout this thread.
No, just defending this man's right to be upset over his loss and reminding those who's response is to 'just get over it' that the foreskin is a nerve laden, functional part of the penis.
Jen
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.