His lawyer had this to say about the suit:
"The man will live the rest of his life without his penis. When he has to urinate, he has to sit down and urinate like a woman. He can't go to the beach. He can't make love to his wife. He has not worked since the procedure. He's basically living his life in complete seclusion."
So, the number one bad outcome of this, according to the lawyer, is that the man will now have to sit down and pee just like a women. And this is bad....because...any time you do anything like a women it makes you less of a man? How sexist can you get?
Second, he can't go to the beach...because...people will know he doesn't have a penis? If he wears the right swimming trunks no one will be able to tell if he has a penis or doesn't have a penis.
Third, he can not make love to his wife. That would be bad if it wasn't true that he could not make love to his wife before the surgery.
Fourth, he hasn't worked since the procedure...because....he has a job where you absolutely had to have a penis to do said job? He must be either a military or an airline pilot.
Fifth, he's living a life of "complete" seclusion ....because....he doesn't want anyone to know he no longer has his penis? Well, then filing a lawsuit is the last thing he should have done. Or is it that he is too devastated about the loss of his penis to leave his house? That is tragic but courts rarely allow for pain and suffering.
It may seem that I am making fun of this poor man but I am not; I am making fun of the members of the legal profession who try to make a buck off the misery of others. All the points I made above are reasons why his lawsuit will be thrown out of court. The article does not say but if the man knew the risks this procedure presented to him before he had the surgery or if he did not disclose all of his health problems to the doctor before the surgery, well, then he is out of luck.
I hope this man knew enough to hire a lawyer who only gets paid if he wins the lawsuit.
No comments:
Post a Comment