Hi Gang, As we can see by the article below, our Judiciary and lawyers are far too busy working on issues of extraordinary importance to be bothered with Consumer Protection. Circumcision Case to Proceed to Trial August 1, 2002 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MND NEWSWIRE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Berkeley, CA - This month, North Dakota District Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger denied a motion for summary judgment by defendants in the Flatt v. Kantak circumcision case, and decided it will proceed to trial on February 3, 2003. The precedent setting decision confirms that a baby who is circumcised can sue his doctor when he reaches age of majority, even if there was parental consent for the circumcision, and even if the results are considered to be 'normal.' "This is the latest in a series of warnings to doctors who still circumcise: proceed at your peril, because even if you get parental consent and do a standard job of the circumcision, the child can still grow up and sue you for taking away part of his penis," says lawyer J. Steven Svoboda, executive director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC). Svoboda said, "This is the second significant legal victory this year, after the case of William Stowell also survived summary judgment and is proceeding to trial. Both cases will establish that, even where the procedure is performed at the professional standard, a circumcision is litigious if the consent is not informed." Marilyn Milos, Director of NOCIRC, an organization that seeks to end routine infant circumcision in North America, says, "Female genital mutilation has been outlawed, and we need the law to set the standard here, too, followed by aggressive educational programs. Parents and doctors need to know that this is a harm that lasts a lifetime." Svoboda stated "The foundation is well laid for lawsuits. Doctors who are still doing circumcisions are already investing in a lot of trouble, and this case will make their troubles worse. They just have to wait 18 years until that baby grows up, and they're in for a lawsuit. An army of lawyers will be there with this precedent and many more in their arsenal." This landmark case brings into question whether a physician can remove healthy, normal tissue from unconsenting minors for non-therapeutic reasons, and whether a parent can legally consent to a medically non-indicated surgery for a minor child. Svoboda is convinced that this case will have a major impact on circumcision in the U.S. "Doctors ignore a lot of medical literature," he said, "and they ignore the screams of the babies, but they listen when they hear the word 'malpractice.' As a lawyer willing to sue, I' ve never had a doctor not listen to me." Let us pray. LOL
Thanks for the laugh! We all know how important the ummm... nether region is to every man, . . . and some women as well humblemarc
Man, am I going to ask my lawyer about this! It's amazes me how many guys don't complain more. Any other's have thoughts?
IMHO Female mutilation is different because it prevents her from enjoying sex. In no way does a circumcision prevent a man from enjoying sex. If you can tell me of *1* adult male that can remember the "pain and suffering" of circumcision, I will show you a greedy liar. I personally think an uncircumcised male's anatomy is ugly. I like the foreskin removed. I had both of my son's circumcised. I think it is a pathetic excuse to get money one did not earn. Because the circumcision is done in infancy, in NO WAY can a male genuinely KNOW what it would feel like if it were still there. I pray that the guy loses. How about lawsuits for removing tonsils since those who have them have less colds. Oh yeah, my children screamed unmercifully when they got their shots. Lets sue for that! Don't forget the time my daughter had a large cut on her face and didn't want stitches. I overruled this MINOR and we HELD HER DOWN so that the procedure could be performed. Let's sue for that too! Don't forget the kid who has a less than adept mother who loses his private because his young teenage mother didn't clean under his foreskin. Then he gets to sue because the DIDN"T remove his foreskin! >>>> climbing off soap box.
I was only joking, in case it wasn't obvious. Although I disagree with male circumcision, I also disagree with sueing the doctor if the parents consented, at least in most cases. I can see if the parents consented under duress, or if the doctor misrepresented the known medical facts. I'm surprised nobody has tried to sue for immunizations. Routinely doctors will use heavy-handed scare tactics to convince parents to imunize their children, even when medical fact does not support the doctor's assertions. I guess it's harder to prove higher risk for disease and more doctor's visits than it is to prove a piece of skin is gone
Funny how you feel you've earned $7000 from a credit bureau because you didnâ??t receive a procedural description etc of an investigation you disagreed with, but a boy who's had his most private part partially amputated for no good medical reason has not "earned" his rights to protection. The fact that the he can't remember it does not justify this barbaric procedure. In addition, female AND male circumcision is a violation of basic human rights, set forth by the UN Declaration of Human Rights- rights to security of person, to freedom from torture and other cruel and unusual treatment, and to privacy. This refers to ALL humans, not only girls.
I hope I don't get flamed...but here goes. I really don't think a woman should be the arbitrator of whether to remove a male's foreskin or not...but most times they are. Circumcision is firmly rooted in the judeo-christian traditions so the first question should be why? Well if one studies the Jewish laws carefully it would be apparent that like many of the kosher laws circumcisions were done for health reasons. The foreskin removal did away with bacterial infections that grew unchecked in the uncircumcised males many times causing death. Certainly this is no longer a concern as today we have strong antibiotics and a more rigorous attention to personal hygiene. My parents had a close friend who after enlisting in the army in WWII was circumcized when the doctor who performed his physical ordered it. His opinions re:circumcision fell on many an interested males' ears as he could say with authority what the "before" and "after" really was. Without getting into the intimate details...let it suffice to say the enjoyable stimuli was permanently damaged post-circumcission not to mention how painful the actual surgery was! On a personal note...when I was awaiting the birth of my first child (in 1976...b4 sonograms were very sophisticated like they are today) my feelings re:circumcission were ambiguous at best. My mother told me my father was not circumcized so I decided to call my grandmother and ask her why she had not had her son circumcized. My grandmother was not the usual "granny" as she had graduated from Leland-Stanford University in 1910 (her older sister was in the first graduating class of Stanford called the "Pioneer Class" which included Herbert Hoover) and had spent her entire life as an educator. I add this in order to indicate that my grandmother was a well read and educated woman. She told me that after researching the pros and cons (my father was born in '22) she had come to the decision that male circumcission was a form of sexual mutilation which should be beneath a civilized society's laws. She referred me to some sources in order that I read opinions on both sides of the debate. After doing my homework I agreed with my grandmother's opinion and decided that if a boy...no circumcission. On April 21, 1976....I had a girl! As for the aesthetics of a circumcissed male v an uncircumcissed male....after living in Europe for 4 years I have seen all the great works of the most famous renaissance sculptors. One of Michaelangelo's greatest works "David" is a beautiful naked, uncircumcissed male. So I guess "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". So while we can titter and laugh re:the male genitalia I, for one, think the subject matter is worthy of scrutiny and agree that such a decision should be an option for adult males given its irreversability. JMHO, clc
