the official story has a number of glaring problems. the first is that circumcision is not a competent treatment for inflammation of the foreskin as any doctor outside the us would be quite aware. most likely Mr. Seaton was suffering from balanoposthitis (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1
there is no valid reason the surgery could not have been put off until consent could be obtained, and most likely no valid reason for the surgery at all.
it is too late for Mr. Seaton. the tissue in question has been disposed of, so proving that it wasn't cancer is impossible. but uncircumcised men in the us pay heed to these lessons to avoid ending up like him.
1. your doctor may be incompetent regarding treatment of problems with your foreskin.
2. do not agree to circumcision as a cure for foreskin problems without doing your own research
and getting a 2nd opinion. it seldom is, and when it is there are usually alternatives.
3. before signing consent forms, ensure any language you don't like is crossed out and
4. don't count on any justice if you suffer malpractice by a doctor incompetent in foreskin care.