Simply put, our Sphincters this month make Lorena Bobbit look like Florence Nightingale. They’re doctors being sued for intentionally, willfully, and wantonly removing a man’s penis ­­– without his consent – when all he agreed to was a simple circumcision.

According to a lawsuit filed in Kentucky state court last month, 61-year-old Phillip Seaton and his wife Deborah are seeking unspecified compensation from Drs. John M. Patterson and Oliver James for amputating Seaton’s manhood without consultation or giving the couple an opportunity to seek a second opinion. The Seatons are seeking compensation for pain, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, as well as “loss of service, love and affection.”

The lawsuit states that, “Despite having no consent to remove his penis and despite being advised by Phillip that he did not want him to remove any part of his penis other than the foreskin, Dr. Patterson removed the penis.” What part of “Please don’t cut off my entire penis” didn’t he understand?

Seaton underwent the procedure a year ago to better treat a bout of inflammation. However, according to Seaton’s attorney, Kevin George, Patterson’s post-surgical notes show the doctor thought he detected cancer and removed the vital member.

While a later test did reveal cancer, George insists Patterson should have ended the procedure and notified the Seatons of his findings rather than arbitrarily deciding to lop off the man’s beloved shlong.

“Sometimes you have an emergency and you have to do this, but he could have very easily closed him up and said, ‘Here are your options. You have cancer,’ and the family would have said, ‘We want a second opinion. This is a big deal,’” George said.

And even if Seaton’s deal wasn’t that big, it was still his deal. A small deal is still a deal and, regardless of its size, no doctor should ever take it upon himself to take it away from its rightful owner.

The lawsuit also names the anesthesiologist, Dr. Oliver James, claiming he used a general anesthesia, despite the fact that Seaton specifically requested that it not be administered. “Because Dr. James changed the anesthesia to general anesthesia, he allowed Dr. Patterson to amputate Phillip’s penis,” the suit asserts. “Without that change, the surgery would have ended.” That’s an understatement.

We can’t help but wonder about the functionality of Patterson’s and James’ Johnsons. It seems unimaginable that two physicians with nominally functioning wangs would conspire to sever another man’s willy, especially when he specifically requested them not to. Perhaps theirs are diminutive and Seaton’s intimidated them. It’s just a theory.

Sure, Patterson and James may have saved Seaton’s life, but is that life really worth living sans love sausage? It’s not like they removed an insignificant part of his anatomy. We could understand lopping off a pinky toe, an ear, or even a testicle. Lance Armstrong had one removed, and his life has been pretty fulfilling since then.

However, had doctors removed Armstrong’s Texas tube steak instead, we seriously doubt he would have won seven Tours de France. And he certainly never would have shagged Sheryl Crowe. “Live Strong” without a penis? Unlikely.