Brand X

Just because a procedure is performed and isn't done in the typical "normal" fashion, does that mean that someone else gets to sue because of it? I mean, if the outcome was, for all intents and purposes, essentially the same as it would have been if things were done according to the book, why would you sue? Because you're hypersensitive and think that you'll get a big payday. Hopefully, in this instance, that will prove to be wrong.

Here's the story according to those smoky folks over there at The Smoking Gun. It seems that a one 47-year old hairdresser, a Mrs. Ingrid Paulicivic, went to a doctor for a hysterectomy. The doctor, a one 50-year old Dr. Red Alinsod, performed the procedure for her. When returning to Dr. Alinsod's office for a follow-up appointment, she asked him about some small burn marks that she noticed on her thighs. He told her that it was nothing to worry about. See, what had happened was that after he had removed her uterus, he used some sort of a cauterizing tool to brand her name onto her removed organ and she must have suffered some minor burns in the process. That's all. Wait. He did what?

Correct. He took her uterus out and then branded her name, Ingrid, onto the removed uterus. Everything about this story has a question attached to it, so I'll try and keep up with any that you may have racing through your head right now. If you're wondering if this is some sort of obscure medical procedure, let me assure you that it is not. The good doctor claims that his reason for branding the uterus with the woman's name was because he “did not want to get it confused with others.” And usually what they do, instead of all of the burning of patient's names in recently removed body part, is to write the patient’s name "... on an accompanying blue sterile towel or a sterile piece of wood like a tongue depressor." Uh-huh. I see. Yeah, there's not way that you could get confused and think to do it the other way. Hmm.

I really cannot figure out what the big deal is. I mean, her uterus was removed, correct? Correct. What in the hell does she care what he does with it when she's done with it? I can understand being a little upset that the guy apparently mishandled his uterine carving tool and slightly burned her thighs. That I get. But I would I be suing over it? Hardly. You know what else I wouldn't be suing for? Loss of consortium, that is correct.

See, she's a married woman. And her husband, Joe Paulicivic, claims that he has been “permanently injured and damaged” due to the resulting loss of consortium with his wife." Hmm. Dude, she had her uterus taken out. I would expect that there might be a little loss of consortium just from that alone, but I don't really know. Can anyone help me with this one? Gerard? You seem to have a variety of sexual endeavors. Ever done it with someone who was sans uterus? What's that like? (By the way, that's Mr. Paulicivic over there on the left. Perhaps if he lost the big cross medallion, he might find himself more consortiable. I'm just saying.)

All of the logistics aside, how do small burns on your wife's thighs prevent you from getting all consortium-y with her? I don't think that they do. This whole lawsuit is obviously pointless. And if you'd like to read the filing and decide for yourself, you may do so by clicking here. Look, I don't know why the doctor did what he did, but he wasn't hurting anyone. What was going to happen to that uterus after it was taken out of commission? It gets thrown away, right? So, who the hell cares if it gets thrown away with her name on it or not? It's not like he was feeding it to the stray cats in the alley out back. But even if he was, would that be so bad? Sure, it would be disgusting (for some reason), but would it hurt anyone? No, of course not.

I just don't get people like this. You're not entitled to any money there, cupcake. And neither are you, Mr. Cupcake. Just go back to whatever you were doing before all of the suing and knock it off. Try a little consortium. Maybe that will help.