The Kentucky Court of Appeals just issued its opinion in Seaton v. Patterson. Seaton had sued Patterson for battery, claiming that the physician amputated his penis without consent. Seaton claimed he consented only to a circumcision. But a jury determined that Dr. Patterson had Seaton's consent. The appellate court found no error in the trial proceedings.
I am following this type of medical battery case to round out the authority in my forthcoming article: "Clinicians May Not Administer Life-Sustaining Treatment without Consent: Civil, Criminal, and Disciplinary Sanctions."