Baby circumcised against parents' wishes = lawsuit??

[Autumnovember]

What if they misread a do not resuscitate form? Or amputated the wrong limb? It boils down to being lazy, and a lazy surgeon is by far one of the scariest things I could imagine.

It is a disfiguring accident. If female circumcision were legal in the US, and your daughter was accidentally circumcised because someone misread a consent form would it still be malpractice?

Wait a sec...performing a circumcision takes effort & work.

I totally disagree that it boils down to laziness.

The laziness comes from not doing the proper pre-surgical prep. Like reading a consent form.

Again, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree because for some reason I doubt a doctor would WANT to perform a surgery they didn't NEED to be performing. So in my opinion, it wasn't laziness. It was a mistake.

 

[Laila619]

Playing devil's advocate here...what are the lifelong consequences for this little baby?

 

[Trekkie]

Last I checked circumcised men could still work for a living.

Sh!t happens.

Wow.

But it's true?

And besides, circumcision is reversible. Not easily, not cheap, but it is possible.

 

[Yimmers]

Well, wow. This discussion could go in so many different directions.

You seem to be saying you don't think they should be able to sue (or something like that).

They didn't want their child circumstanced. Their child was circumcised.

I don't know anything about the law but I think they have a right to be angry.

Imdanny is right. These are different issues presented here.

Well, the hospital did a procedure that they were told not to do. So yes, they probably a committed a tort. Negligent infliction of emotional distress comes to mind here, along with the others mentioned above. Someone was probably negligent to allow an unwanted procedure to go forward.

What their damages should be is a different story.

Kenny raises a point - does a circumcision mean that he's somehow prevented from leading an otherwise normal life? Probably not. Plaintiffs will have to show otherwise - and I think it will be difficult to present evidence that he will suffer from increased medical conditions as a result of the procedure. So, all their damages is really based on pain and suffering. You'll have to ask yourself whether you'd be willing to award damages for pain and suffering because their son won't be able to follow family tradition and for any the infant may have suffered from the procedure. The jurors in the area may or may not agree.

 

[LadyBlue]

Last I checked circumcised men could still work for a living.

Sh!t happens.

Wow.

AFAIC, this is just not that big of a deal.
Some guys are cut, some not.
Both get along fine.
It is not like they took out the GOOD kidney.

Today's expectation of perfect safety and perfectly perfect perfection in every way is downright creepy.

Kenny, I totally understand that it's not a big deal for you. But for this family in question it is a HUGE deal. Should not we respect others people points of view? Just because for you it's not a big deal should they feel the same?

 

[doodle]

What if they misread a do not resuscitate form? Or amputated the wrong limb? It boils down to being lazy, and a lazy surgeon is by far one of the scariest things I could imagine.

It is a disfiguring accident. If female circumcision were legal in the US, and your daughter was accidentally circumcised because someone misread a consent form would it still be malpractice?

I would also consider these examples malpractice, albeit more extreme examples of it, because there's a lack of intent to cause harm. Depending on the circumstances, you could also argue negligence or reckless endangerment or the like, but I still wouldn't see it as battery (or in the case of the DNR form example, I wouldn't see it as murder but rather as a civil case of wrongful death). If it were legal here and my daughter were accidentally circumcised, I would still see it as malpractice. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be FURIOUS, but my fury doesn't change the legal classification of the crime, nor do I think it should.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

Last I checked circumcised men could still work for a living.

Sh!t happens.

Wow.

But it's true?

And besides, circumcision is reversible. Not easily, not cheap, but it is possible.

Then the doctor/hospital should pay for every procedure needed to reverse it.

 

[Autumnovember]

Last I checked circumcised men could still work for a living.

Sh!t happens.

Wow.

AFAIC, this is just not that big of a deal.
Some guys are cut, some not.
Both get along fine.
It is not like they took out the GOOD kidney.

Today's expectation of perfect safety and perfectly perfect perfection in every way is creepy.

Your last sentence reminds me of people that say things like:

"well what if THIS happened...or THAT...would it be acceptable? I bet not!"

 

[dragonfly411]

What if they misread a do not resuscitate form? Or amputated the wrong limb? It boils down to being lazy, and a lazy surgeon is by far one of the scariest things I could imagine.

It is a disfiguring accident. If female circumcision were legal in the US, and your daughter was accidentally circumcised because someone misread a consent form would it still be malpractice?

I would also consider these examples malpractice, albeit more extreme examples of it, because there's a lack of intent to cause harm. Depending on the circumstances, you could also argue negligence or reckless endangerment or the like, but I still wouldn't see it as battery (or in the case of the DNR form example, I wouldn't see it as murder but rather as a civil case of wrongful death). If it were legal here and my daughter were accidentally circumcised, I would still see it as malpractice. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be FURIOUS, but my fury doesn't change the legal classification of the crime, nor do I think it should.

This. I would expect repercussions though.

 

[dragonfly411]

Last I checked circumcised men could still work for a living.

Sh!t happens.

Wow.

But it's true?

And besides, circumcision is reversible. Not easily, not cheap, but it is possible.

Then the doctor/hospital should pay for every procedure needed to reverse it.

This too, if the parents fought for it.

 

[Autumnovember]

Last I checked circumcised men could still work for a living.

Sh!t happens.

Wow.

AFAIC, this is just not that big of a deal.
Some guys are cut, some not.
Both get along fine.
It is not like they took out the GOOD kidney.

Today's expectation of perfect safety and perfectly perfect perfection in every way is downright creepy.

Kenny, I totally understand that it's not a big deal for you. But for this family in question it is a HUGE deal. Should not we respect others people points of view? Just because for you it's not a big deal should they feel the same?

A multi-million huge deal?

Their baby is not in danger or harm. Their baby also probably will not be affected by the mistake on a larger scale.

Although it IS sad that this happened because of their strong ties to the tradition, it's not something that is going to damage that baby or family.

 

[Autumnovember]

Playing devil's advocate here...what are the lifelong consequences for this little baby?

Can't think of any...

 

[Circe]

I have very strong feelings about male circumcision. I hate it.

It was done to me and I hate it. I don't agree with it and I don't think it should be done to anyone.

My comments aren't meant to offend or upset anyone who feels differently but this is how I feel.

I feel the exact opposite.

Gee, Autumn, this whole time I thought you were female!

I think it's a little inappropriate to tell people who face mutilation how you feel about it when you're not threatened by it. This is also why I'm none too concerned with the men who think FGM is no big deal.

 

[Autumnovember]

I have very strong feelings about male circumcision. I hate it.

It was done to me and I hate it. I don't agree with it and I don't think it should be done to anyone.

My comments aren't meant to offend or upset anyone who feels differently but this is how I feel.

I feel the exact opposite.

Gee, Autumn, this whole time I thought you were female!

I think it's a little inappropriate to tell people who face mutilation how you feel about it when you're not threatened by it. This is also why I'm none too concerned with the men who think FGM is no big deal.

I'm pretty sure I didn't tell ImDanny exactly how to feel. I told him I felt the complete opposite ----- in terms of his thoughts that nobody should have it done, not the fact that he specifically hates it.


ETA: by the way, making smirky comments about whether or not I'm male or female, isn't cute.

 

[kenny]

Last I checked circumcised men could still work for a living.

Sh!t happens.

Wow.

AFAIC, this is just not that big of a deal.
Some guys are cut, some not.
Both get along fine.
It is not like they took out the GOOD kidney.

Today's expectation of perfect safety and perfectly perfect perfection in every way is downright creepy.

Kenny, I totally understand that it's not a big deal for you. But for this family in question it is a HUGE deal. Should not we respect others people points of view? Just because for you it's not a big deal should they feel the same?

I see your point but ... what constitutes "reasonable"?
Let's say I'm offended and upset to the point of a nervous breakdown and inability to ever work again because my neighbor painted their house bright purple.
House color may not be a big deal to you but to me it may be way up their with religion.
I want to sue for millions in lost wages, damages, blah blah blah.
My lawyer says we may win.

Is that reasonable?
Most people would say, No.
Why not, if we are to respect every single opinion and sensitivity of every single person no matter what?

How do we collectively decide what is reasonable for others?

The hospital made a mistake.
They admitted it an apologized.
Move on.
That's my opinion.

I'm not telling the family what to do or how to think.
I'm just stating how I think and what I'd do.

My opinion only applies to me no matter how strongly I express it.

 

[AGBF]

How about a deep breath everybody? Let's not assume the worst of everyone involved, OK?

We do not know the parents. We do not know that they are motivated only by money. It is possible that, even though circumcision is very widely accepted in the United States, so widely accepted that it is performed on almost every male baby, that it is barbaric to them.

If you were the parent of a helpless, newborn infant and you were the only one who could protect him in the world, you would take your job very seriously! You would not allow anyone to inflict needless pain on your precious, defenseless baby! What is someone wanted to drill a hole through his nose, for instance...and you knew he would cry and cry?

That being said, circumcision is routinely performed on babies. Is it battery? I don't know. But ear piercing is routinely performed on teenage girls and it still requires parental consent.

Deb/AGBF

 

[goCubsgo]

People are ridiculous.

The baby was in the NICU and the hospital provided great care for him. So the baby's nether region won't match his father/brothers/uncles. Is it the end of the world? No. Is the baby damaged or harmed? No. Be grateful for what you have. There are REAL problems in the world. People have kids who are dying from cancer. People have babies who were harmed during delivery by a negligent doctor, and they have REAL lifelong consequences (cerebral palsy or brain damage). Count your blessings is what I say. The baby is fine, and will suffer no harm or medical problems. In the grand scheme of things, be grateful.

My brother and sister-in-law were terribly upset when their doctor performed a medically unnecessary 4D ultrasound on their unborn baby. Studies show that 4D ultrasounds haven't been proven safe and there is still a lot they don't know about them. These types of ultrasounds use higher frequencies than regular ultrasounds, and can possibly affect a baby's hearing. Should they sue? Potential hearing damage is a WAY more serious issue than a circumcision.

 

[Circe]

I'm violently anti-circumcision. I think it's mutilation, and I think it's barbaric (and I'm Jewish, so, yeah). I agree with the family's decision to sue: their child was injured by the hospital's negligence. Just because it's an injury that's voluntarily undertaken by however many other people doesn't make it acceptable.

There are countless men who feel like Danny does, and if we had some laws in place against altering the bodies of children without their consent, they wouldn't have to. I think it's a damn shame that a practice that initially helped with hygiene under completely different social circumstances is still being inflicted, but ... fine, at least it's generally chosen by the parents. There is still *some* consent in place on behalf of the child. This? This was carelessness, and it deserves to be punished.

 

[doodle]

Last I checked circumcised men could still work for a living.

Sh!t happens.

Wow.

AFAIC, this is just not that big of a deal.
Some guys are cut, some not.
Both get along fine.
It is not like they took out the GOOD kidney.

Today's expectation of perfect safety and perfectly perfect perfection in every way is downright creepy.

Kenny, I totally understand that it's not a big deal for you. But for this family in question it is a HUGE deal. Should not we respect others people points of view? Just because for you it's not a big deal should they feel the same?

I see your point but ... what constitutes "reasonable"?
Let's say I'm offended and upset to the point of a nervous breakdown and inability to ever work again because my neighbor painted their house bright purple.
House color may not be a big deal to you but to me it may be way up their with religion.
I want to sue for millions in lost wages, damages, blah blah blah.
My lawyer says we may win.

Is that reasonable?
Most people would say, No.
Why not, if we are to respect every single opinion and sensitivity of every single person no matter what?

How do we collectively decide what is reasonable for others?

The hospital made a mistake.
The admitted it an apologized.

I'm not telling the family what to do or how to think.
I'm just stating how I think and what I'd do.

My opinion only applies to me no matter how I frame it.

Kenny, your perspective and the reactions to it bring up a good point. Obviously, most people have a very strong opinion regarding something that is harmful to a child (not saying circumcision is or isn't harmful to a baby, but in this case, it's being framed that way). Anyway, I find it interesting how many arguments are made either way based sheerly upon an emotional response to the scenario regardless of the laws applicable to the scenario. "What if it were your baby?" or "What if it were your genitals?" is not the same as "What are the LEGAL ramifications?" Sure, we should all try to be sensitive and respectful to the views of others, but the judicial system shouldn't be based on whether someone's feelings will be hurt.

 

[Octavia]

Not to get all lawerly on you guys talking about there not being intent...but...to prove battery, you do not have to prove intent to actually cause harm or injury but rather you must prove intent to commit the act. Even though the doctor did not intend to harm the baby, he did intend to perform the circumcision.

Doctors are often sued for battery when they perform a procedure for which they were not given consent.

ETA - Q for those saying it is not battery...what's your reasoning? Battery has a legal definition - in general in the US, though the definition varies from state-to-state, battery is intentional and unpermitted physical contact that causes harm or offense.

Exactly what lucyandroger said. Operating without consent is a textbook description of the tort of battery (literally...ask any lawyer if he or she knows Mohr v. Williams). Personally, I might not sue for that extravagant an amount, but I believe the family is well within their rights to hold the hospital accountable for its mistake.

 

[dragonfly411]

Circe - I personally feel different, and would be extremely upset if there were laws against circumcision as a baby. It can still serve hygiene purposes in some ways, and for some it is also a religious matter, which would then infringe upon that right as well. I do respect your opinion, but I don't think it's fair for those that don't believe in it to say that others should not.

Sorry, I just needed to get that off of my chest. I hope you don't think I'm singling you out, I just wanted to add a counter viewpoint to the matter.

 

[doodle]

Not to get all lawerly on you guys talking about there not being intent...but...to prove battery, you do not have to prove intent to actually cause harm or injury but rather you must prove intent to commit the act. Even though the doctor did not intend to harm the baby, he did intend to perform the circumcision.

Doctors are often sued for battery when they perform a procedure for which they were not given consent.

ETA - Q for those saying it is not battery...what's your reasoning? Battery has a legal definition - in general in the US, though the definition varies from state-to-state, battery is intentional and unpermitted physical contact that causes harm or offense.

Exactly what lucyandroger said. Operating without consent is a textbook description of the tort of battery (literally...ask any lawyer if he or she knows Mohr v. Williams). Personally, I might not sue for that extravagant an amount, but I believe the family is well within their rights to hold the hospital accountable for its mistake.

Okay, legal question. You have to prove intent to commit the act, but does that mean in this case that you'd have to prove intent to perform the circumcision or that you'd have to prove intent to disregard the lack of consent in performing the circumcision? If the doctor decided, "I know better than these parents, so I'm going to do this anyway," I'd totally buy a battery charge based on the definition you gave. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, and I apologize if it seems so. I'm just genuinely interested in the legal interpretation of the situation. Thanks in advance for the info, and I'm glad the lawyers are on this thread--you guys add a valuable perspective!

 

[lulu]

Wow, when I read this all my attorney antennae stood up. Legally it is battery. Calculating the monetary value of damages will be interesting. I'd sue for sure.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

People are ridiculous.

The baby was in the NICU and the hospital provided great care for him. So the baby's nether region won't match his father/brothers/uncles. Is it the end of the world? No. Is the baby damaged or harmed? No. Be grateful for what you have. There are REAL problems in the world. People have kids who are dying from cancer. People have babies who were harmed during delivery by a negligent doctor, and they have REAL lifelong consequences (cerebral palsy or brain damage). Count your blessings is what I say. The baby is fine, and will suffer no harm or medical problems. In the grand scheme of things, be grateful.

My brother and sister-in-law were terribly upset when their doctor performed a medically unnecessary 4D ultrasound on their unborn baby. Studies show that 4D ultrasounds haven't been proven safe and there is still a lot they don't know about them. These types of ultrasounds use higher frequencies than regular ultrasounds, and can possibly affect a baby's hearing. Should they sue? Potential hearing damage is a WAY more serious issue than a circumcision.

Why perform a medically unnecessary surgery on an infant in NICU?

 

[panda08]

Doodle, I practice in CA but I'm pretty sure the definition of battery is uniform across the U.S. It's defined as the wrongful contact with resulting harm. So in this case, the intent that needs to be proven is the intent to circumsize, as that's the contact involved. In CA, a physician who performs a medical procedure without the patient’s consent commits a battery irrespective of the skill or care used. By contrast, if a patient consents to a procedure without being informed of all the known risks, the doctor’s failure to disclose those risks is negligence, i.e., medical malpractice. This case sounds like battery but calling it a "human rights violation" is silly.

Looks like the hospital made an honest mistake but the parents have the right to sue. However, the amount of damages is questionable/not easily quantifiable and most likely, not in the multi-million dollar range.

 

[Imdanny]

Last I checked circumcised men could still work for a living.

Sh!t happens.

Wow.

AFAIC, this is just not that big of a deal.
Some guys are cut, some not.
Both get along fine.
It is not like they took out the GOOD kidney.

Today's expectation of perfect safety and perfectly perfect perfection in every way is downright creepy.

Kenny, I totally understand that it's not a big deal for you. But for this family in question it is a HUGE deal. Should not we respect others people points of view? Just because for you it's not a big deal should they feel the same?

It's a big deal to me, both what I think about it and how I feel about it (and I'm talking about myself AND the hospital in my case made no mistake).

The bottom line for me is that it's the parents' choice. People do have differing opinions about this matter.

 

[lucyandroger]

Not to get all lawerly on you guys talking about there not being intent...but...to prove battery, you do not have to prove intent to actually cause harm or injury but rather you must prove intent to commit the act. Even though the doctor did not intend to harm the baby, he did intend to perform the circumcision.

Doctors are often sued for battery when they perform a procedure for which they were not given consent.

ETA - Q for those saying it is not battery...what's your reasoning? Battery has a legal definition - in general in the US, though the definition varies from state-to-state, battery is intentional and unpermitted physical contact that causes harm or offense.

Exactly what lucyandroger said. Operating without consent is a textbook description of the tort of battery (literally...ask any lawyer if he or she knows Mohr v. Williams). Personally, I might not sue for that extravagant an amount, but I believe the family is well within their rights to hold the hospital accountable for its mistake.

Okay, legal question. You have to prove intent to commit the act, but does that mean in this case that you'd have to prove intent to perform the circumcision or that you'd have to prove intent to disregard the lack of consent in performing the circumcision? If the doctor decided, "I know better than these parents, so I'm going to do this anyway," I'd totally buy a battery charge based on the definition you gave. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, and I apologize if it seems so. I'm just genuinely interested in the legal interpretation of the situation. Thanks in advance for the info, and I'm glad the lawyers are on this thread--you guys add a valuable perspective!

Doodle, The act that constitutes battery must be physical contact and in this matter, it is the actual performance of the circumcision (i.e., the actual cutting of the boy's genitalia by the doctor). Therefore, the parents will have to prove that the doctor intended to cut their son's genitalia. In other words, he didn't slip on a banana peel with a knife in his hand and accidentally perform the circumcision.

The lack of consent comes in for the "unpermitted" part of the definition of battery. The parents do not have to prove that the doctor purposely disregarded their instructions. They must simply prove that they did not give the doctor permission to perform the surgery.

 

[dragonfly411]

Next question for me. If the parents had not stated one way or the other, would it make a difference in the battery claim? This part is pure curiosity, because I would then wonder if THAT would be considered negligence on the parents' part thus nullifying their claim in a way, or nullifying their arguments of battery in any way. Again, pure curiosity on that one.

 

[panda08]

Next question for me. If the parents had not stated one way or the other, would it make a difference in the battery claim? This part is pure curiosity, because I would then wonder if THAT would be considered negligence on the parents' part thus nullifying their claim in a way, or nullifying their arguments of battery in any way. Again, pure curiosity on that one.

What do you mean, not stated one way or the other? If they didn't give consent, that's battery. If they signed the consent form but didn't know what they were signing, their consent would be a defense to the battery claim.

 

[LadyBlue]

I have very strong feelings about male circumcision. I hate it.

It was done to me and I hate it. I don't agree with it and I don't think it should be done to anyone.

My comments aren't meant to offend or upset anyone who feels differently but this is how I feel.

I feel the exact opposite.

Gee, Autumn, this whole time I thought you were female!

I think it's a little inappropriate to tell people who face mutilation how you feel about it when you're not threatened by it. This is also why I'm none too concerned with the men who think FGM is no big deal.

Autumn, I think you can not know how you would feel, you can have an opinion, but you have not experience it. I think telling Imdanny that you feel the opposite is questionable, you can think differently but you can not feel it. I know you are a girl because I saw you in BWW but when I read it at first I thought you were a man before I read your avatar.