Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
So the patient's dick was almost certainly an inflamed, infected mess, the patient himself wasn't in great health, the surgeon was performing a non-standard circumcision and there probably was a suspicion that more might be wrong. When he did find something, it almost certainly wasn't something small that could have been removed by less drastic means.
|
The most likely scenario might have been that decayed tissue may have been found once the surgeon began performing the procedure.
Instead of leaving the damaged tissue exposed, the doctor then made the decision to amputate the diseased organ to save time and to prevent further spread of the infection (which would have been exacerbated by the removal of the foreskin).
The case will not go very far once the doctor presents his finding to a medical tribunal and they back his decision.