The issue is not that the woman was cauterized, but the manner, or in this case the pattern, in which it was done. What possible medical reason could there be for the doctor to brand the woman's uterus (and that of other women, apparently) with "UK"?

This is in the up-dated article that I linked to:
David Yandell, also a doctor at the University of Louisville, sent the Herald-Leader an e-mail defending Guiler and saying, in part: "Malpractice would only have been committed if he hadn't marked the uterus. Whether you use a 'UK' or a 'yes' or a 'up' or whatever, the uterus has to be marked in some way for identification of the fundus," or base, of the organ.

It seems there is a relevant reason for marking the organ. There are also counter-points and other points given in the article, I just chose the one that I felt like giving here.

And the lawsuit is over the alleged impropriety involved in the surgery (hence my comment about the strained marital relationship and how amused I was by that). Yes, reduced sexual interest on the part of both spouses is often an after-effect of hysterectomies. Since this IS so well-documented, why does there need to be a lawsuit about it? Because they are claiming that this reduction is due to the particulars of this case (the UK branding), which to me seems a little ridiculous. Just my $.02...