[piasa]

One part of the article says only a "portion" was removed- the lump. Then without missing a beat, the reporter implies the entire thing was amputated.

Which is it? Couldn't the reporter make up his mind?

If it required a full amputation it was bound to be life-threatening. Then again, if it was a complete lop job, whatever will the poor guy think with now that his primary head is gone? And if it wasn't a complete amputation, but only the diseased portion that was removed, why imply the guy lost his stick-shift and is now an automatic?

[boop]

Yes. I've been reading several accounts about this case. Apparently the guy had 2 surgeries. The first removed about an inch of the penis. He then required another surgery where they removed the entire organ. And apparently the man isn't literate, so there was some question about the consent.

BTW, as to article it was a "unanamous" decision, but then it says the vote was 10-2.