The main point of contention is whether Patterson acted reasonably in removing the organ immediately or if amputation could have been delayed to let Seaton seek other medical options.
Judge Janet Stumbo and Judge Donna Dixon concluded that, even though Seaton had limited ability to read and write, he never informed the doctor of that fact and signed the consent form in the presence of a witness. The Seatons claimed that the waiver didn't give Patterson authority to conduct an amputation without further consent.
Stumbo wrote that Patterson acted properly because the tumor had consumed such a large section of the organ.
"For this reason alone, the resection of the tumor was 'necessary and proper' in the context of inserting a catheter," Stumbo wrote.
Judge Michael Caperton dissented, but did not issue a written opinion.He gets it.
Thank you for reading this blog.