Quote:
Originally Posted by eroticsexxx
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.
|
Or maybe it was squamous cell carcinoma which at first was thought to be lesions caused by severe but standard balanitis. During surgery, the physician may have found subcutaneous lesions which convinced him that the only course of action was excision.
Either way, I think we can safely say that the media once again managed to turn what may well have been a sound medical decision into a medical horror story.
And for those who say "but nothing warrants cutting off a dick!":
Squamous cell carcinoma of the foot, now imagine having that below the skin on your dick.
DO NOT LOOK IF YOU ARE SQUEAMISH
