Making the claimant whole

 

 

Ohh…kay.  I’ve heard enough and I’m ready to render summary judgment here?

So, first off, obviously the claimant has suffered a loss and associated trauma.  This court – and I think all parties to this case – acknowledge his suffering and I am sure I speak for everyone in this room when I say we sympathise deeply.  It was a terrible, terrible thing to happen.

Equally, terrible things happen.  That's life.  The medical profession makes mistakes, as do we all.  The apology the hospital issued was short, admittedly, but “Sorry we castrated you by mistake.” is at least simple and clear.  Brevity is a virtue: I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of the apology offered.  The hospital administrator has assured me that the additional comments added to that email, referring contemptuously to the size of the material removed, were never intended for publication and they do not know which of the nurses or doctors - if indeed it was a member of the hospital personnel – was responsible for that, or for the subsequent wide dissemination of the comments on social media.  And also of course the photographs, which the claimant understandably found acutely embarrassing, not least because the women’s undergarments and the 'humorous' positioning of the sex toy seem to have been placed on him after the administration of general anaesthetic.  Should the perpetrators ever be identified, they should suffer consequences – a significant financial penalty at least - as this was a serious breach of medical ethics.  As was the medically unnecessary and inappropriate use of the enema.  These things should never have happened.

However, the hospital administrator has made strenuous efforts to discover the perpetrator - or perpetrators - and failed.  All three of the medical personnel who had the opportunity to have carried out these hurtful acts have testified in this courtroom it wasn’t them. I have considered but here reject the claimant’s lawyers interpretation of Nurse Taylor’s repeated giggling on the witness stand.  Her subsequent comments on Twitter, while hurtful in the extreme, do not in any way constitute evidence of guilt.  Similarly, the fact that the bought the underwear in which claimant was so wrongly dressed up, while unconscious, and that the photographs were found on her phone, both constitute circumstantial evidence at best.  Another nurse on duty testified that Nurse Taylor is conscientious to a fault and I found the claimant's counsel's suggestion that this witness's long-standing lesbian relationship with Nurse Taylor - and indeed her participation in a lesbian dating ring' with the other two hospital staff who might have been involved - might in some way have influenced her opinion... well, I just find that suggestion to be offensive beyond belief.  I will note at this point that I myself am a lesbian, counsel, as it happens and I hope that you would not dream of suggesting that my opinion in a case in which three lesbians are alleged to have unnecessarily castrated a male and then exposed him to ridicule on social could in any way affect my judgement.  My comments complimenting Nurse Taylor on her appearance were simple courtesy, nothing more.  I shall be pursuing this matter further, counsel, believe me.

 

 

Where was I?  Oh yes.

Anyway, I think we just have to conclude we’ll never know. I am satisfied the hospital administration was not at fault and the apology is there, so that’s that.  Just one of those things: claimant needs to move on, as Nurse Taylor so fetchingly put it.

Turning to the matter of compensation, of course some financial settlement is due.  Claimant has suffered a loss and deserves compensation just as would someone - say - whose car had been unnecessarily crushed.  To pursue the analogy, however, it would obviously not be just to award someone compensation as if they had lost – say – a brand new Ferrari, when the vehicle of which they had been deprived was in fact an old two-door hatchback that won't start without being given a push.  Or a rusty bicycle with wonky wheels.  The compensation has to be commensurate with the value of what was lost - in this case, claimant's genitalia.  Can we even put a monetary value on such a loss?  Many would find that distasteful, but the law requires us to try.

In that context, I am therefore going to admit the evidence adduced by the defendants.  Although I recognise that the claimant’s existing embarrassment has unfortunately been enhanced by the sequence of witnesses who have been former sex partners – mainly paid sex workers – testifying to his sexual prowess, or rather the lack of it, I am convinced that this is relevant evidence. Indeed, from their testimony it is hard to see that the claimant’s ability to engage in what he considers sexual activity has been harmed in any way by his loss – after all, he still possesses a tongue and the streetwalkers downtown still have shoes and toilets. Certainly, there seems to be no likelihood at all that the claimant has been deprived of anything that a normal person would describe as 'sexual intercourse' as - with all due apologies for any embarrassment this must undoubtedly cause him - he is thoroughly unattractive as he is and was probably still more so, when he had functional genitalia still attached.  Defendant's counsel has suggested that 'creepy' is  the word that springs to mind on first meeting the claimant and I have to concur: that was precisely my thought on the very first day of trial.  This observation - undisputed by claimant's own counsel who appears to avoid any close contact with him even here in court - seems highly relevant to the matter of compensation.

I am also aware that any financial compensation he receives could be used to further his disgusting pursuits, although obviously that consideration can play no role in my decision.

Nonetheless, claimant suffered a loss and I am therefore here ordering that the hospital pay him the sum of two hundred and forty-five dollars and thirty-five cents in compensation.  Plus interest.  Let that stand as a statement of this court's firm disapproval of the negligence the hospital showed in this case.  I don't want to see you back here, so don't do it again.

Right.

Now, turning to the question of costs, these have run into many hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of this rather disturbing case.  Claimant had every right to seek justice – but equally, the hospital has a right to its defence.  Lawyers are rightly not cheap, any more than the sex workers who had to be paid for their time testifying – at length - about the claimant’s physique and practices.  Someone has to pay for all this.  The question I ask myself, is whether these costs should be paid from the funds of a hospital, devoted to saving lives – recognising that any such payment could directly impede their ability to provide patient care – or, to quote one of claimant’s emails to a sex worker, a “disgusting little worm” who pays women to humiliate and abuse his “revolting micro-dicklette”.  Or did, before the defendants did us all the service of removing it.

Not an easy decision, obviously.  Nonetheless…

 

Nurse Taylor's the one on the left, in case you're interested.  She's giggling beneath her mask, but don't worry: that's just a nervous tic she has.  You'll be fine.

NB: in case you were wondering how come the judge uses  lot of British language at times but the compensation is set in dollars, the explanation is, erm... it's in Australia!  Or New Zealand.  Or somewhere like that, anyway, where all the legal terms are exactly as set out here.  I mean, it must be.  I don't just make this stuff up, you know.