Man Goes To Hospital For Circumcision, Wakes Up With No Penis

Screen Shot 2014-07-24 at 1.56.53 PMHere’s an honest mistake that could happen to anybody.

A guy comes into the hospital for a circumcision (this isn’t a joke setup), you put him under for surgery and something goes wrong.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

He wakes up without a penis.

That’s the horrifying allegation brought by a lawsuit against Princeton Baptist Medical Center in Birmingham, Alabama by one supremely unlucky guy who claims he was never warned that amputation was even a remote risk with the procedure.

“When the plaintiff … awoke from his aforesaid surgical procedure, his penis was amputated,” the suit reads.

It contends that he has suffered additional/extended pain and suffering during his recovery, has spent additional time in the hospital recovering, and has been caused to spend more money. The man’s wife also claims loss of consortium.

Which we’d say is putting it extraordinarily mildly.

No dollar amounts are mentioned (nor why he wanted to get circumcised in the first place — we can’t be the only ones who wish they’d never been snipped), but if the alleged events are true, we’d recommend a nice round number followed by six or seven zeroes.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #alabama #circumcisionman #hospital stories and more


  • NateOcean

    Let me guess:

    “Penis Amputation” is an acceptable form of birth controlled covered by Hobby Lobby’s health plan.

  • Billy Budd

    I would say at least seven zeroes. A value in the high seven zeroes.

    This is unforgivable. Not even nazis thought of this kind of torture.

  • michael

    @Mezaien: no, he’s got an angry inch

  • sweetbrandigirl2004

    I’m sorry but I find this story mildly suspicious. Why is a grown man only now having a circumcision isn’t this something that is done shortly after birth ?

  • Bjk

    This has happened before when the surgeon discovered cancer in the penis and felt amputation would be life-saving. Don’t know what the outcome was.


    I would think a circumcision would have been done with a local anesthetic. i don’t think they put infants under for that. It sounds fishy to me.

  • nsomniac

    @sweetbradigirl2004 doesn’t surprise me quite a few men get circumcised later in life for either health reasons or some other complication that requires them to do such. Some just do it for hygiene purposes. My dad actually didn’t have the procedure done until his late 30’s from what I was told. Who knows why the man did it later in life I feel sorry for him that he’s having to go through this. Hopefully he gets taken care of financially and the hospital is also forced to help him surgically.

  • abuelo

    I would want a refund and a repeter.

  • Pistolo

    See, the penis isn’t really built to sustain that kind of alteration ESPECIALLY when fully developed. Unlike the vagina, which is meant for birthing a whole 10 pound baby potentially, the penis can only withstand so much trauma. It will heal fast but it has a lot of nerve endings and physiological components that will be HUGELY affected. It is a very, very bad idea and there are many horror stories about men who went in for circumcisions. There are also, quite frankly, lots of malpractice scenarios and misinformation about caring for foreskin as well. There are so many options before circumcision that a lot of urologists just remain ignorant to like the surgical treatment of phimosis (which should be a simple, singular incision usually- not a circumcision). If any doctor tells you to get a circumcision, get a second opinion.

    I was treated for simple phimosis though thankfully not through circumcision and the pain (which is only a small fraction of the pain one would experience during a circumcision) was crazy. I’m left now without scars and a pretty dick but I, now especially will never circumcise a baby boy or encourage others to or undergo the procedure. I was extremely lucky and I wanna share that luck.

  • Ben Dover

    I keep thinking of the extremely angry, pissed off “mohel” on Seinfeld. LIKE A DOG, LIKE AN ANIMAL!

  • Duke490

    @Pistolo: Pistolo: Evidently,you know very little about circumcision. When it is done by a skilled surgeon, there is very little pain and usually, a quick recovery time. It has been medically proven by three separate studies, that is very beneficial for males to be circumcised. The World Health Organization strongly recommends for many health reasons.

  • jwrappaport

    What do you call a cheap circumcision?

    A rip-off.

    Tasteless jokes aside, what an awful case. Good grief. It will be interesting to see what actually happened – perhaps there’s more here than meets the eye.

  • Dxley

    This article is ridiculous!!!

  • Pistolo


    1) The World Health Organization endorses circumcision in reference to treatment of HIV transmission in Africa, it does not “strongly” recommend it. It also works on the premise of a universally criticized study that was done unscientifically to say the very least. So that wasn’t truthful.

    2) The World Health Organization is the ONLY major organization that endorses circumcision in any way at all.

    3) The “benefits” can be acquired with basic hygiene and safe sex, you don’t need to go as far as circumcision to protect the penis.

    4) The *less* painful procedures you describe are done with lasers and are quite costly. Also, medically speaking, the level of pain a person experiences is often determined by how debilitating it is. You can have penile surgery and leave the hospital in the same day, so it’s frequently considered a minor surgery. But anything on the dick is sensitive as hell and it hurts like a son of a bitch. You have to go through to have any idea whatsoever as to what I mean by that.

  • jwrappaport

    @Pistolo: False. The American Academy of Pediatrics has essentially the same position as the WHO, viz., that while the benefits outweigh the risks, they do not outweigh them by such a margin that universal circumcision is recommended.

    Also, it’s a bit self-defeating to say that the WHO is “the ONLY major organization” to endorse circumcision. It’s like saying, “only the largest and most well respected international health organization endorses circumcision.” With few exceptions, the WHO has pretty unimpeachable credibility

  • Pistolo

    You really want to do this?

    A direct quote from the American Academy of Pediatrics….

    “After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.”

    Notice the “benefits are not great enough” part. They aren’t endorsing it at all. And I maintain that the World Health Organization doesn’t endorse routine circumcision at all either. You’re manipulating the context of their words to suit your argument but the facts simply aren’t on your side.

  • Dxley

    At least he no longer wanted a cheesy dick.

  • tham

    Patient “Are you telling me that I will never feel the sensation of an erect penis again?”

    Doctor “You will, it just won’t be yours”

  • BitterOldQueen

    If I were his lawyer (and I totally wish I were), I’d be taking this one directly to a jury, do not pass go, do not accept settlement offers.

  • Large Marge

    Um.. I think a lot of people are missing the fact here that appears to be something was really, really wrong with his dick. It wasn’t just accidentally or mistakenly chopped off (which would warrant a major lawsuit)… and what operation never goes through all the ‘death may result from this surgery’, ‘complications’ etc… that is sooooo standard.

    I’m not buying the dickless bullshit he is selling without having any of the other side.

  • biscuit_batter

    @Pistolo: Sounds like you have a nice one:) any pics?? I have always wondered what it would be like to have a foreskin. This story does sound fishy tho.

  • jwrappaport

    @Pistolo: I’d love to do this, although I’m not sure what “this” is except both of us, presumably non-clinicians, quoting internet sources anyone can find in about five minutes. This is a pretty straightforward semantic argument: does a claim that “the benefits outweigh the risks” constitute an endorsement? I would say yes, yes it does. It may not be a ringing endorsement and, as sensible people do, the AAP tempered it by saying that it was of slight benefit. Nevertheless, by definition, saying that the benefits outweigh the risks of a procedure is to say that it’s medically justified and therefore an endorsement.

    I’m not sure how you can conclude from your quoted passage that they “aren’t endorsing circumcision at all.” That’s just not the case. While the AAP isn’t saying it should be done as a matter of course, they said very clearly the health benefits outweigh the risks (albeit slightly), ergo, it is a medically justified but certainly not a necessary procedure. By any fair reading, that’s an endorsement. It may not be as sweeping as recommending it in all cases everywhere, but it’s nonetheless a claim that the procedure is medically justified on the grounds that the benefits outweigh the risks, however slightly. I think it’s fair to say that’s an endorsement – you’re welcome to disagree, and I would put it to the fairmindedness of the readers here.

  • Pistolo

    @jwrappaport: To endorse something means to encourage it, they aren’t encouraging it, they say “…but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision” meaning they don’t recommend it, they find it permissible. And it’s pretty obvious from their disclaimer at the end that they’re somewhat covering their asses… “the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs”.

    They are, in essence, saying that it’s relatively safe enough to continue practice but that it isn’t medically necessary. They have no evidence being uncircumcised is detrimental to a person’s well-being. Frankly, I think carefully-worded statements about “religous” and “cultural” obligations are meant to protect religions that continue to practice. They don’t want some holy war and people should be free to practice the religion of their choosing. Should they be allowed to surgically indoctrinate their child before they have the choice of religiosity? I don’t think so. But people are willing to compromise genital integrity to evade controversy, go figure. A bunch of screaming kooks in SF opposed the circumcision ban and it was s–t-show, so silly.

    @biscuit_batter: It’s nice having one, I don’t see circumcised dicks as lesser but the level of curiosity and fixation on my uncutedness leads me to believe a lot of men feel the way you do. You love your dick no matter what but if you can have more, why wouldn’t you want more? Everyone should have that choice.

  • vive

    @Pistolo, agreed, interpreting “not enough [evidence] to recommend” as an endorsement requires some very twisted logic, to say the least.

    Not to mention that the U.S. is the only Western country whose medical authorities are still wishy-washy about it, due to historical and other baggage in this kooky country. Medical authorities in the rest of the developed world pretty much uniformly recommend *against* routine infant circumcision.

  • jwrappaport

    @Pistolo: It’s a very straightforward argument, and my premises are unassailable.

    Premise 1: Endorse is defined in Merriam Webster’s as “to publicly or officially say that you support or approve of (someone or something).”

    Premise 2: The AAP claims that the medical benefits of male circumcision outweigh the risks.

    Premise 3: To say that the benefits outweigh the risks of a given medical procedure is to approve of that procedure as medically legitimate.

    Conclusion: The AAP approves of and thus, by definition, endorses the practice of circumcision, even though it does not recommend it be done universally.

    @vive: You didn’t read the sentence in its entirety. The AAP said that there is not enough evidence to recommend universal circumcision, i.e., as a matter of course for every person in all cases. However, there is enough evidence, according to the AAP, that the benefits outweigh the risks such that it is a medically legitimate practice.

  • jwrappaport

    I’m not expressing any opinion on the merits of circumcision, as I’m not a clinician and frankly don’t have a strong view one way or the other. This is a completely straightforward semantic argument.

  • Gusteau


    Premise 3: How do you know that is actually means approval of said procedure?

    Conclusion: If it approves the procedure as medically legitimate, why does it incidentally mean they approve of the procedure per se? You went from approving the procedure as medically legitimate(just the theoretical procedure) to endorsing circumcision(the actual following up with the procedure). Where is that leap comming from? Where I am from, calling a procedure medically legitimate is NOT the same as endorsing the procedure on its own. It’s just that, calling it medically legitimate. You can also easily state something as medically legitimate while not recommending the procedure at all without contraticting yourself. You made quite a huge leap in terms of medicine.

    Honestly, the AAP is really one of the last western organisations to say circumcision benefits outweighs the risks, which is utter horsehite as they are still under that false impression that it somehow prevents penile cancer, even though there are absolutely no hard or empirical facts to support that.

    It’s probably very hard for the men in that organization to admit their failure, as it influenced the life of quite many people, including their own. Like a rape victim(harsh I know), they have to aknowledge that whatever happened to them in their childhood was wrong, and they have to deal with it now.

  • Queer4Life

    This is a crotch grabber from beginning to end, and not in a good way. I feel for this guy I really do, but WTF was he thinking. Seriously why the F would anyone want to get even part of their penis chopped off. This crap happens way more than people think. Circumcision is a disgusting and vulgar practice with NO science behind it. Its was pushed by a bunch of anti masturbation puritans and is justified only because people can’t admit they might have been wrong. This whole thing is disgusting and F***ed the hell up.

  • vive

    Fortunately (IMO) universal circumcision is going away in the U.S. According to my own, uh, research, while gen X-ers are still mostly cut, about half of generation Y is already uncut. And that is a beautiful thing. :)

  • vive

    @jwrappaport, sure, “endorse” means “approve” but I think you are stumbling on the usage of the word “approve,” which has a very special and restricted meaning in the medical context here. The “approve” we use in medicine (as in approving a drug a a procedure) is not the same “approve” that appears in the dictionary definition of “endorse.”

    A good example that shows the difference: the FDA approves many drugs, but the FDA doesn’t endorse any drugs.

  • Dxley

    All of my childhood friends weren’t cut at birth, but they chose to get cut when they were in their early twenties and late teens, and although infant circumcision is decreasing, many men choose to get circumcised later on in life. I’m glad I was done at birth and will never be with an uncut man. I would never touch an uncut dick with a 10 ft pole and my circle of gay boys as wouldn’t as well — we’re very picky and very “shallow”.

    I’ll never understand why uncut men take so much offense to some cut guys not wanting them. It’s our dicks that went through this mutilation (your words) and disgusting practise (your words, too). I like clean and trimmed guys, so it’s always simple a choice for me. I want to know from the beginning if you’re cut or not, and if you aren’t, I’m not going to be sensitive and tactful about it — get the fuck out of my life!

  • vive

    @Dxley, you said it yourself. You are shallow. You are also an ill mannered and ignorant hysterical queen. Don’t worry, uncut guys won’t want you. Neither will cut guys.

  • Dxley

    @Vive: Keep telling yourself that, sweetie. These are MY preferences, okay? ;)

  • crowebobby

    @Dxley: You’re welcome to your preferences, but I will never believe you know a bunch of guys who decided to get circumcised in their late teens-early twenties. Not without a list of name along with ID’s. No one who’s grown up with a complete dick is going to voluntarily settle for half of one. And there’s nothing particularly appealing about the raw scar tissue left (for life) by circumcision.

  • Billy Budd

    Uncut guys have much more sensitive glans. This is a great advantage when using condoms, for example. I am cut but I am totally against circumcision or phimosis treatment. I think it should be done only when all other resources have failed. You can have an uncut but CLEAN dick. It is not a contradiction. I have sucked very clean uncut dicks in my life. Seriously.

  • lcandela123

    I really wish I never read this story. The idea of losing my best friend is too horrifying.

  • Dxley

    @crowebobby: I don’t give a fuck what you believe. How is a circumcised dick “half”? Hahaha! They cut the foreskin, not the penis — unless you’re this guy in this article. Personally, I’ve never seen a man with a “raw scar” and they all look pretty to me. I don’t do guys who have worm dicks. I never have and never will suck an uncut man, and the thought of even coming close to one horrifies me. This is my life, this is my body. I’ll never compromise and settle for something I don’t want just so I’m not insensitive towards guys with cheesy dicks that smell like skunks. A cut dick or no dick, it’s really simple for me :)

  • Pistolo

    @Dxley: It’s a natural part of the male anatomy and if you’re not okay with that then maybe it’s your problem, not theirs. Maybe there’s something more going on with you sexually that you’re using uncut men to address.

    @Billy Budd: @Billy Budd: Thank you, so true. Same, uncut men with normal hygiene habits are usually clean.

  • Dxley

    @Pistolo: Honey, If I wanted a “natural” man, I’d probably be with a caveman.

  • Pistolo

    @Dxley: You’re as evolved as one so maybe you’re onto something…honey.

Comments are closed.