FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Kentucky man did not consent to have his penis amputated and the doctor who performed the surgery had options other than removing the organ, even though cancer had been found during a surgery, an attorney argued Tuesday to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Kevin George, the lawyer for Phillip Seaton of Waddy, told the appeals panel that the medical waiver signed by his client contains extremely broad language and that Dr. John Patterson should have sought consent before removing the penis. Patterson, a Kentucky-based urologist, maintains he found cancer in the man’s penis during surgery and that it had to be removed. The patient claims the surgery was supposed to be a circumcision and he never authorized the amputation, nor was he given a chance to seek a second opinion.

Hey bro I don’t care if you find cancer, AIDS or the bubonic fucking plague in my dick – don’t chop it off. I’d rather have a cancer dick than no dick. The shame of it all was this dude was obviously looking to enhance his penis, right? I mean why else would you get circumcised as an adult? He probably lived his whole life with hooded dragon because his inbred, oxy-addict parents didn’t snip his tip when he was born. Finally decided enough was enough, the covered wagon had to go. Time to drop the top and let his mushroom tip breathe. Wanted a normal dick. And bingo bango one surgery later he’s got no dick at all. Thats some ironic shit.

Bottom line is you can take liberties with another man’s cock. Doesn’t matter what you find as a doctor, you can’t do anything to another man’s dick without ask permission first. Rules and tenets such as this are generally understood in modern America. Which is why it comes as no surprise the only dick removing retards come from the backwoods of Kentucky.