A man undergoes what seems like a routine circumcision.
The urologist suspects cancer, and subsequently removed the penis. Tests later confirmed the malignancy.
Despite that, I can’t imagine why there wasn’t a discussion prior to the more invasive procedure.
Related posts:
- Does a physician’s bias color the informed consent discussion?
- 15 things you don’t know about your penis
- Penis re-attachment specialists
- The circumcision debate
- Should the informed consent discussion be formally taught?
- Informed consent gone wrong
- Micropenis
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
The article says they “did detect cancer.”
My mistake – I misread the article. I amended the post.
Thanks,
Kevin
Comments on this entry are closed.