Assault by surgery

[charlou]

Fucking hell.

Patient too shocked to complain of genital surgery

CAROLYN DeWaegeneire was "shattered" and in a state of shock for years after a doctor cut out her genitals, unable to complain about the unauthorised surgery, a jury has heard.

Told that she would be in hospital for about three days for a "simple" procedure in August 2002, the then 58-year-old woke from her anaesthetic in pain with stitches that felt "like barbed wire".

The doctor who performed the surgery, and cannot be named for legal reasons, is standing trial before a jury at Sydney's Downing Centre District Court after pleading not guilty to charges of inflicting grievous bodily harm on Ms DeWaegeneire and excising her clitoris.

Giving evidence today, the mother-of-two, who was widowed in 2001, recalled giving consent to the doctor only for the removal of a small piece of skin on her vulva, identified to be a form of pre-cancer.

"If I had known that my clitoris was going to be cut off there is no way I would have walked through that hospital door," Ms DeWaegeneire said of the procedure, which left her in a NSW hospital on painkillers for six days.

Ms DeWaegeneire said in evidence the doctor told her of his intention when she was "helpless", about to pass-out from anaesthesia on the operating table.

"His face came close to mine and for my ears only he said 'I'm going to take your clitoris too' with which I slid under the anaesthetic," Ms DeWaegeneire said.

Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen SC asked: "Did you have the opportunity to respond?"

"I was gone," Ms DeWaegeneire replied.

Ms Cunneen: "Had the accused ever told you that he intended to take your clitoris?"

Ms DeWaegeneire: "If that had been mentioned you would not have seen me for dust".

She said when she woke from surgery "I knew what had happened and I was shattered".

The doctor's barrister, John Stratton SC, told the jury his client "honestly believed what he was doing was necessary for the treatment of his patient".

He said the comments allegedly made before surgery were not correct and that evidence would show none of the other four people in the small theatre heard those words.

"He was not trying to mutilate or harm Ms DeWaegeneire, he was trying to save her life," Mr Stratton said.

He questioned why Ms DeWaegeneire didn't raise any queries about the surgery until two years after it occurred.

"I had lost my husband, I had now lost my anatomy, I was in shock, I could not replace what was gone," she said.

Asked what is left of her genital region, Ms DeWaegeneire replied "nothing".

"I've been told I could have reconstructive surgery but I said 'no way is anyone coming near me again'," she said.

Earlier today, Ms Cunneen told the jury of seven men and five women they would hear evidence from a theatre nurse who questioned the doctor's actions at the time.

The nurse allegedly told police she asked the doctor: "That's fairly radical surgery. Why are you taking so much?'"

He allegedly replied: "If I don't take it all the cancer will spread."

Nurse: "You would not be taking my clitoris no matter what."

Doctor: "Her husband's dead so it doesn't matter anyway."

The jury trial before Judge Greg Woods continues on Thursday. It is expected to take three weeks.

[Millefleur]

Thats so sad

[Feck]

I wonder if would have had the same attitude to operating on a widower .."he has no wife just lop it all off !" somehow I doubt it !

[FBM]

[Trolldor]

Hmm.

[eXcommunicate]

Reading this makes my peepee hurt.

[Kristie]

Reading this makes my peepee hurt.

Mine too.

[mistermack]

This is horrendous. It sounds like real arrogance from the doctor. Especially if he made no mention of what he intended before she was going under.
But these cases are so frustrating. Why the fuck, if it happened exactly as reported, didn't she complain for two years?
This is incredibly frustrating with rape cases as well. I know it can be very hard to come forward, but if you don't, you have to accept the consequences.
Not that your case won't succeed, but that it's made much harder to get success, because of your own inaction.
It's not good, but it's a fact of life. You have to take it into account, you have to be fair to both parties.
.

[Bella Fortuna]

Fucking hell!!!

[Sælir]

This is horrible

[Gallstones]

This is horrendous. It sounds like real arrogance from the doctor. Especially if he made no mention of what he intended before she was going under.
But these cases are so frustrating. Why the fuck, if it happened exactly as reported, didn't she complain for two years?
This is incredibly frustrating with rape cases as well. I know it can be very hard to come forward, but if you don't, you have to accept the consequences.

The consequences exist regardless. One party perhaps, does not enjoy them; the other perhaps does. Consequences are incumbent upon and inevitably, predictably follow directly from the experience. It can happen that one party might choose to try to assume the minimum consequences possible by trying to forget rather than re-live--over and over and over and over and over again. Especially in public. Despite the fact that this method may not work.

Not that your case won't succeed, but that it's made much harder to get success, because of your own inaction.
It's not good, but it's a fact of life. You have to take it into account, you have to be fair to both parties.
.

Both parties? Fair?

I am inclined to think that there is some measure of retribution that tips the fairness factor into being "fair".

[Svartalf]

that doctor needs to hang, preferably from a hook passed through his genitals and above a place full of man eating sharks... or possibly a piranha infested stretch of the Amazon.

[Trolldor]

If he didn't warn her beforehand that there was a risk he might have to then he didn't properly inform the patient.
Hope he rots.

[mistermack]

Both parties? Fair?

I am inclined to think that there is some measure of retribution that tips the fairness factor into being "fair".

I'm talking about a fair trial. That's what I mean by being fair to both parties. The guy is innocent, till proven guilty.

It appears he is pleading not-guilty, so his version of what happened is obviously different from what's in this summary.
This summary might be true, or it might be wrong. That's up to the jury.
If he's found guilty, then of course some measure of retribution is in order.
.

[Ayaan]

This quote speaks volumes:

Doctor: "Her husband's dead so it doesn't matter anyway."

Damn doctor should lose his license.