Today, I had a meeting with the hospital to discuss my surgery and recovery. I wasn’t sure what to expect, but it was essential for them to recognize and document the negative outcome I’m facing due to medical errors. I wanted to make it clear that this wasn’t just a routine procedure with a successful result.

Unfortunately, I had a bad cold that day and wasn’t feeling well. I’ve been getting sick a lot lately, likely because my immune system has weakened due to all the stress and medication I’m on.

I arrived at the hospital with my wife, and when we entered the meeting room, the director, Mr. Wang, and Dr. Yang Yao Kun were already seated. After we sat down, the director asked how I was doing, and I began to explain my situation and the pain I was experiencing. I shared my medication details and brought all my documentation from the other hospital. I mentioned that during a recent appointment with the urologist at Taichung Veterans General Hospital, I was informed that my testicle had lost function and that there was a critical 48-hour window to restore blood flow after surgery. The doctor clarified that it’s actually more like 8 hours. I pointed out that my testicle must have already died before I left the hospital, to which the doctor responded that it’s unusual to reopen a patient so soon after surgery to address complications.

We discussed why no additional examinations were performed prior to my surgery to assess the type of hernia I had or whether mesh was necessary. The doctor explained that typically, this isn’t done, and the type of hernia is determined during the operation.

The director and doctor shared their own experiences with surgery and how it affected them. The doctor mentioned that the medication I was taking made him feel dizzy after his surgery.

I expressed my concern that the doctor never informed me about the risks associated with my surgical option. He insisted he clearly explained all the risks, claiming to have a special memory for such details and could remember exactly what was discussed. I knew he hadn’t explained the risks during our initial consultation. After all, who is more likely to remember accurately: a doctor who sees patients daily or a patient undergoing surgery for the first time in his adult life? If a doctor had told me I might lose a testicle or suffer chronic pain, I certainly wouldn’t forget that—it was a major decision for me.

He also mentioned that, because I’m an educated man with a university background, I should have been aware of the risks associated with the surgery. I found this comment a bit rude. I’m not a doctor; I rely on him to guide me and clearly explain any potential risks.

He claimed he never said he wouldn’t use mesh for my surgery, but I knew this was untrue. If that were the case, I wouldn’t have opted for traditional surgery over laparoscopic. It seemed clear to me that he hadn’t discussed any risks related to my surgery because he anticipated a non-mesh approach, which would make testicle damage less of a concern.

The doctor and director pointed out that we signed a form outlining the risks associated with surgery. My wife requested to see the form, and an assistant retrieved it from the records office. The form listed testicle atrophy as a 0.1% risk. Forms were signed at the hospital without time to read them thoroughly, and these risks pertained to mesh repairs, not my case, as I was supposedly having a non-mesh repair. The doctor should have taken at least a few minutes to verbally explain the risks; this alone would have impacted my decision. I believed the major risks stemmed from anesthesia, not the surgery itself, which I thought was a simple procedure to stitch the muscle hole.

My wife questioned the three-hour operating time, and the doctor explained that this was typical due to the preparation and anesthesia involved.

She also addressed my significant depression and anxiety, which I felt uncomfortable discussing. I had never experienced anxiety or depression before the surgery, and I didn’t know what was normal.

At that point, the doctor was called away for another surgery, leaving just my wife, the director, and me.

We briefly touched on compensation, but at that moment, all I wanted was for this to end so I could return to a normal life. Compensation wasn’t my main focus.

My wife discussed the potential long-term effects of this surgery, including the possibility of multiple future operations and medications. The director stated he could only cover immediate costs for my return to the hospital and prioritize my appointments with the doctor.

As we left the meeting, we talked about why laparoscopic surgery wasn’t chosen. The director defended the surgeon’s decision to use traditional surgery, suggesting it was possibly just a cost-saving measure.