Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Healthy Penis' started by xrush_uncut, Jun 15, 2006.
Is this a call for expert witnesses? Here at LPSG we have a lot of self-styled authorities on the matter ... no doubt most of whom will weigh in momentarily ...
It's an interesting case. Both parents were born in Europe, Poland and Slovakia where medical circumcision is virtually unknown. The mother is marrying a jewish guy so there's a little bit of added pressure. What's truly unknown of course, is how much the young boy is suffering. It sounds like the jewish doc on the mother's side didn't know how to treat the inflammation and prescribed a topical treatment that was evidently inappropriate and may have worsened the condition.
There have been a number of cases brought to the courts and there have been no clear guidelines for the courts to follow. Most cases have centered around religion and supposed medical necessity. Barring medical necessity, most courts have sided with the parent who wants to keep their child intact. If there have been medical reasons, the courts have also pushed more thorough treatment as opposed to genital modification.
Evidently, this case could provide a legal precedent in preventing parents from having their male children circumcised. As has been mentioned in other threads, in 1996 the US passed a law preventing ANY genital modification of female infants or children. Since the law only addresses female genital modification it is sexist as it doesn't provide equal protection for males. The 1996 law also has a relgious bias as FGM is mostly only practiced by Muslims.
Whatever the outcome of this case, it probably won't be long before a case reaches the USSC and male genital modification is banned. The jewish and Muslim outcry will of course be huge and could lead to some serious conflict when one parent is religious and the other isn't. In the end, circumcision should be a decision taken by adults in adulthood, not forced on innocent children.
Expanding on the religious point, I wonder if anybody has ever suggested to them that the child being cut as an adult (instead of as an infant) could be considered 'more holy', since they'll know and accept what they're being cut for.
I am not one who wants to get in on and pass opinions for the debate pro/con about circumcision. I am circumcized and OK with it. But when I see pics like Jose... I am left wondering what it would be like to have the foreskin.
However, I think they need to find the cause of the boy's problem before arguing. The surgury may or may not correct the problem. Young kid apparently does not have a say at this time
I don't know how that would be regarded. I do know that a friend of mine converted to Judaism, as an adult, to get married, and while already circumcised, still had to have a bris, drawing at least a drop of blood, to be symbolicly circumcised in the faith. Or, as it was called around the office, "the pricking of the prick." Some, who didn't get along with him, were unsure if that refered to him, or his penis/foreskin.
The jewish physician who is testifying for the mom evidently prescribed neosporin which is contraindicated for the condition. He also claimed that the condition was of long standing but it was unsupported by the boy's medical history. The mother's marriage to a jewish guy obviously has a lot to do with the case.
I'm sure the boy has gotten a lot of pressure from his stepfather, stepbrother, mother and jewish doc to get cut. It seems the only way to discover how serious the boy's condition is would be to get him a new pediatrician, one who has experience with foreskins and isn't tainted by religious ideology.
Hmmm, it sounds like the temple, family of sect of Judaism that he joined into was pretty hard core as moderate jewish sects do not require circumcision of converts. Orthodox jews are pretty hardcore though and require total frenulum ablation.
Also, there's been a big to do and rightly so in New York about orthodox mohels who actually suck on that boy's penis after circumcision to remove the blood. It has caused the death of at least one boy and has brain damaged a couple of others because the mohel was infected with Hepatitis B. In any other situation this would be considered child sexual abuse but the New York Dept. of Health has decided that with certain limitations, it's ok to continue the practice. This ritualized sucking of the penis is sick and just shows how religious extremists are given free reign when it comes to child abuse. One more reason why circumcision should be banned.
What's the problem in waiting til the boy grows up and can decide for himself?
As long as either birth parent objects it should not be done.
I didn't want either of my boys cut at birth but their mother did - guess whom the doctors asked! The father is rarely consulted in the delivery room.
Pecker: That is against basic medical ethics, but I believe the procedure is as well, so whats new..
Did anyone else notice that the Judge also has a Jewish first name and surname (Jordan Kaplan), hopefully this will not influence the case..
Definitely. But that still places the kid at the whim of parents - just shows in sharper focus the absurdity of leaving a decision for non-therapeutic reductive surgery in amateurs' hands. Whose penis is it?
And they were cut against your wishes? That's disgusting! And the mother may not even consent when wide awake, but will when doped up.
That's very logical but it doesn't work like that. Jewish infant circumcision is very deeply entrenched indeed, many believing literally that it is a direct instruction from the Almighty, even specifying the exact day (which trumps even the Sabbath).
So far as I know there is no culture that routinely circumcises consenting adults. (It may be happening in Southern Africa in the belief that it protects against AIDS, but you can be pretty sure that by the time they find out it doesn't work, they'll have moved it to infancy and made it "part of our culture" as it is in the US. If not, it will die out as it has in most of the English-speaking world.)
Yeah, do no harm is also against medical ethics but too many docs just wanna cut, cut, cut.
I often wonder if jewish or muslim judges should recuse themselves from cases like these. There's a powerful cultural bias at work here and one has to wonder at the ability of a cut jewish judge to overcome centuries of indoctrination.
*Smashes Head Into Desk*
I remember reading not TOO long ago, in Washington state, where I live, there is supposed to be a law (I haven't read the statue myself, so it is still hearsay, although the story was a reasonably reputable source) that allows a male to sue the doctor who circumcized him at birth, as long as the male sues him within something like 90 days of turning 18. So, there is some precedent that allows for future lawsuits against doctors for circumcizing children at birth, regardless of the parents wishes. THis of course doesn;t count in the case of verified evidence of medical neccesity for the infant circumcision. But it would have to be a pretty strong case that it was life and death that the circumcision was required---like a gangrenous level of phimosis or something. Hopefully, since there is some precedent established, the overly routine, still, practice of circumcision because it is another way for doctors and hospitals to charge for a procedure. as well as get the financially lucrative sale of the removed foreskin(infant foreskins are often used in various forms of medical research or treatment procedures) will be reduced or eliminated.
I don't think there's a specific statute or precedent about circumcision, and I think it's longer than 90 days, but the statute of limitations starts rolling at 18. There's an attorney in Seattle who specialises in circumcision cases, mainly botched, but will take on non-consent cases. The non-consent cases are uphill because circumcision is so entrenched in the US. Someone said Jewish or Muslim judges should recuse themselves - actually any cut US judge is likely to suffer from the same prejudice. A guy in New York won an out-of-court settlement on the basis that his mother was doped up and didn't give informed consent. Overseas, it's easier and one guy in Australia got a large but undisclosed settlement.
<sigh> What horrible people these parents are. And to think, if we had a constitutional amendment that queers couldn't marry, this would not be an issue because this marriage would have been protected and they never would have divorced.
Seriously, though, one claims health issues, the other claims he's healthy. Who do we believe? In a previous (heated) thread about circumcision, some of the "pro-cut" people used the logic "the parents own the child, so they can do whatever they want with his body." So, if the parents divorce during the pregnancy or soon after, who really should own the child and decide for or against his circumcision?
no shit. the fact that the mother wants to take something like this into a public courthouse is at least as indicative of a sick mind as her wanting to have the kid cut in the first place.
Correct, Doc. I'm still of the mindset of "the less medical/cosmetic intrusion upon a body, the better." When one can legally consent to his own body modifications, that's a different story. But the fact remains that there is dispute about the "medical necessity" of the boy's penis.