A man asked the Andalusian Health Service (SAS) for a compensation of 165,000 euros by interpreting that the operation he underwent to treat his erectile dysfunctionin which a prosthesis was implanted, failed because This didn’t help his penis grow to 17 centimeters..
The patient presented his complaint to the Consultative Council of Andalusia (CCA), an organization based in Granada which published a report contrary to the patient’s claims. The Advisory’s opinion, to which EFE had access, explains that the plaintiff’s medical care began in December 2016, when the patient was operated on for the first time at the San Cecilio Clinical Hospital in Granada, although he will be operated on again four more years late.
The operation, dedicated to the treatment of erectile dysfunction, consisted of implant an inflatable penile prosthesiswhich was removed three years later, after undergoing surgery, arguing that it did not function well and did not meet “size parameters”. He then provided a report in which he defended the “obvious malfunction” of the penile prosthesis and proposed installing a new one as the “only solution”.
The Advisory Council disagrees with him
Although the patient underwent a new intervention, the Consultative analyzed the report issued by the head of the urology department of the San Cecilio Clinic, an expert who defends that the “perfect functioning of the prosthesis” was verified by MRI. In this same report, the specialist emphasizes that the real reason for the second intervention is the patient’s disagreement “with the size of the penis after erection” and their lack of adaptation to handling the prosthesis. The Advisory considered that the medical action carried out was always correct and on time and added that the operation had the informed consent of the patient.
“The prosthesis is not implanted to extend the length of the penisbut to obtain an erection,” adds the report, which states that the patient was even shown photos so that he understood the difference between the length of the prosthesis and the effect it would have on his penis.
According to the opinion of the Consultation, the patient decided to change his prosthesis, and it was then explained to him again that “the change of prosthesis does not imply an increase in the length of the penis”. With this data, the Council rejected the patient’s claim for compensation, concluding that the medical care was always correct.
.
