The story by itself is hardly funny:
A man is suing the Louisville Jewish Hospital in Kentucky for amputating his penis during a routine circumcision.Since it was published in JC, I've assumed first that it is another one of the famous "shaking hand" circumcision horror stories. But no:
Philip Seaton was scheduled to have a circumcision to remove inflammation. But the lawyer for surgeon Dr John Patterson said that Dr Patterson had discovered cancer during the surgery in October 2007.Anyway, I would have forgotten the story immediately, if not the following statement:
Mr Seaton and his wife Deborah are seeking damages as compensation for "loss of service, love and affection".I assume that the list of the lost abilities above comes from the lawyer. Because, not being a lawyer, I am feeling lost contemplating it. Let's see:
- Service - check
- Love - oh well, love should survive the loss, but OK - check.
- Affection - no, I don't get it. How does one provide (or display) affection using this specific appendage? Maybe the judge should ask the lawyer to demonstrate?
P.S. The plaintiff lost the suit after all. Probably his lawyer couldn't prove that affection clause.
P.P.S After reading the material I could find on the net, the only Jewish connection of this whole story is the name of the hospital where it happened. So why British JC picked it up is unclear.
