Baby circumcised against parents' wishes = lawsuit??

[davi_el_mejor]

anybody knows the % of newborns being circumcised in the U.S.??

In 2005, about 56 percent of male newborns were circumcised prior to release from the hospital according to statistics from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb45.jsp

more information here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

 

[movie zombie]

it doesn't matter a whit who is for and who is against the procedure: the hospital did NOT have the parents consent to perform said procedure. this is a matter of law. the hospital broke the law. someone was incompetent and/or did not follow procedures. this is why they carry malpractice insurance.

MoZo

ps parents in this day and age give a lot of thought to whether or not they want their son to have this procedure so, yes, it is a big deal. i'm with Dancing Fire: let the kid make his own decision and do it later if he so desires. his body, his decision.

 

[Imdanny]

I find the argument that worse things could happen so this isn't really a big deal to be dismissive and inherently judgmental.

I think it's more that mistakes happen. Forgiveness is important. Especially considering the hospital took good care of their baby in the NICU, he is alive, healthy, and well. Does the situation suck and was it wrong? YES. Will the baby be just fine, with no handicap? Yes.

This reminds me of the death penalty thread we had recently--suing for millions won't bring the foreskin back. Why ruin a good doctor's life over an honest mistake? It's not like the doctor secretly is pro-circumcision so he did it anyway behind the parents' back. In big hectic hospitals, mistakes happen. Luckily, this one did not cause any real lasting harm to the baby.

I think there's a disconnect. You don't feel that the circumcission is "lasting harm." The other side of this discussion considers it "lasting harm."

Absolutely, and two men here, Davi being the fortunate one IMHO, and myself, one uncircumcised, one circumcised, have explained in exact detail the "lasting harm," especially Davi's post about the tissue with nerve endings being gone, cut off, surgically removed, gone forever. It is truly fascinating to me (partly because I used to be one of the people who thought this way) that anyone could believe that being mutilated has no consequences.

 

[monarch64]

it doesn't matter a whit who is for and who is against the procedure: the hospital did NOT have the parents consent to perform said procedure. this is a matter of law. the hospital broke the law. someone was incompetent and/or did not follow procedures. this is why they carry malpractice insurance.

MoZo

ps parents in this day and age give a lot of thought to whether or not they want their son to have this procedure so, yes, it is a big deal. i'm with Dancing Fire: let the kid make his own decision and do it later if he so desires. his body, his decision.

Completely 100% agree.

 

[Dancing Fire]

anybody knows the % of newborns being circumcised in the U.S.??

In 2005, about 56 percent of male newborns were circumcised prior to release from the hospital according to statistics from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb45.jsp

more information here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

hmmm...56% in 2005?? then i'd imagine it is more like 50/50 nowadays.

 

[goCubsgo]

ImDanny, saying that circumcision = mutilation as though it's a fact is offensive; that is your opinion, it is not fact. Many religions and cultures would beg to differ with you. Please have some sensitivity with that--these are religious and ethnic values and traditions we're talking about. Do you believe Jewish couples think, "We're planning on mutilating our son when he is born"? As a circumcised male, I am very thankful that I am circumcised. I certainly don't feel upset or feel like my parents mutilated my body in any way. And as for the cleanliness issue, well let's just say that my fiancee has mentioned before that her ex-husband was uncircumcised and she found his scent/hygiene very off-putting down there. Keeping things clean is apparently easier said than done.

In any case, our beliefs on circumcision have no relevance to this case. And I'm pretty confident in saying the judge will not be awarding this couple millions.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

ImDanny, saying that circumcision = mutilation as though it's a fact is offensive; that is your opinion, it is not fact. Many religions and cultures would beg to differ with you. Please have some sensitivity with that. As a circumcised male, I am very thankful that I am circumcised. I certainly don't feel upset or feel like my parents mutilated my body in any way. And as for the cleanliness issue, well let's just say that my fiancee has mentioned before that her ex-husband was uncircumcised and she found his scent/hygeine very off-putting down there. Keeping things clean is apparently easier said than done.

In any case, our beliefs on circumcision have no relevance to this case. And I'm pretty confident in saying the judge will not be awarding this couple millions.

It is as easily done as said.

And it is the definition of mutilation.

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Edited to fix transposed words.

 

[goCubsgo]

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Edited to fix transposed words.

Again though, it's subjective... because not everyone agrees. The penis is not crippled, disfigured, or destroyed. It still is fully functioning.

If that is the case, then cutting a baby's umbilical cord, breast implants/reductions, ear piercing, rhinoplasty, c-sections, and removal of gallbladders and appendix are ALL mutilation as well.

 

[kenny]

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Edited to fix transposed words.

Again though, it's subjective... because not everyone agrees. The penis is not crippled, disfigured, or destroyed. It still is fully functioning.

If that is the case, then cutting a baby's umbilical cord, breast implants/reductions, ear piercing, rhinoplasty, c-sections, and removal of gallbladders and appendix are ALL mutilation as well.

Well, not quite "fully".
With many of the nerves permanently removed from the bulls-eye of pleasure sex does not feel as good.
Also since the unit cannot slide back and forth within the looser skin there is more friction and less pleasure for the woman too. ... well, from what I've read.

 

[Imdanny]

ImDanny, saying that circumcision = mutilation as though it's a fact is offensive; that is your opinion, it is not fact. Many religions and cultures would beg to differ with you. Please have some sensitivity with that--these are religious and ethnic values and traditions we're talking about. Do you believe Jewish couples think, "We're planning on mutilating our son when he is born"? As a circumcised male, I am very thankful that I am circumcised. I certainly don't feel upset or feel like my parents mutilated my body in any way. And as for the cleanliness issue, well let's just say that my fiancee has mentioned before that her ex-husband was uncircumcised and she found his scent/hygiene very off-putting down there. Keeping things clean is apparently easier said than done.

In any case, our beliefs on circumcision have no relevance to this case. And I'm pretty confident in saying the judge will not be awarding this couple millions.

Then be offended. My father is Jewish. My mother is Methodist. I don't give a damn about all of that.

When Davi says it has lasting harm, when I say it has lasting harm, is this an "opinion," or a reality we're describing.

This is a very unpleasant subject. I don't believe that people have a rational reason for doing this to male babies, it was done to me, I'm certainly allowed to think what I will about it.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Edited to fix transposed words.

Again though, it's subjective... because not everyone agrees. The penis is not crippled, disfigured, or destroyed. It still is fully functioning.

If that is the case, then cutting a baby's umbilical cord, breast implants/reductions, ear piercing, rhinoplasty, c-sections, and removal of gallbladders and appendix are ALL mutilation as well.

You can drive a car with a dented fender, doesn't mean it's destroyed but it is disfigured. However, you can buff out a fender a lot easier than buffing out a circumcision.

I really hate debates over semantics.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Well, not quite "fully".
With many of the nerves permanently removed from the bulls-eye of pleasure sex does not feel as good.
Also since the unit cannot slide back and forth within the looser skin there is more friction and less pleasure for the woman too. ... well, from what I've read.

really??...

 

[Autumnovember]

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Edited to fix transposed words.

Again though, it's subjective... because not everyone agrees. The penis is not crippled, disfigured, or destroyed. It still is fully functioning.

If that is the case, then cutting a baby's umbilical cord, breast implants/reductions, ear piercing, rhinoplasty, c-sections, and removal of gallbladders and appendix are ALL mutilation as well.

Well, not quite "fully".
With many of the nerves permanently removed from the bulls-eye of pleasure sex does not feel as good.
Also since the unit cannot slide back and forth within the looser skin there is more friction and less pleasure for the woman too. ... well, from what I've read.

I think it really just depends from person to person. I have friends that have been with men of both 'kinds'. Some preferred the man to be circ'd and others did not in terms of pleasure.

 

[geckodani]

I don't see how anyone's opinion on circumcision bears weight in this instance. The hospital performed a surgical procedure WITHOUT consent. This constitutes malpractice. Ergo, lawsuit.

 

[Laila619]

I don't see how anyone's opinion on circumcision bears weight in this instance. The hospital performed a surgical procedure WITHOUT consent. This constitutes malpractice. Ergo, lawsuit.

Yep. But the real question is, do you agree it should be for battery, not malpractice, and for millions of dollars?

 

[geckodani]

I don't see how anyone's opinion on circumcision bears weight in this instance. The hospital performed a surgical procedure WITHOUT consent. This constitutes malpractice. Ergo, lawsuit.

Yep. But the real question is, do you agree it should be for battery, not malpractice, and for millions of dollars?

Not being well versed in the law, my gut reaction is that the malpractice suit is completely appropriate. Battery I'm not so convinced of. Millions of dollars - well, I guess that depends on the going rate for malpractice suits these days.

 

[Bunny007]

For everyone that feels bad for the hospital or the surgeon, don't! That's what malpractice insurance is for.

And besides, hospitals should be held to a high standard. Irreversible mistakes like this should NOT be happening. Ever, no matter what the procedure. Some of you feel that this particular mistake was no big deal. Would you feel the same if it was you and you, I don't know... woke up from surgery with rhinoplasty?

It's hard for me to summon any feelings about circumscision, because I'm a girl, and because it's common among the men that I know. I still think the hospital should be held accountable. It seems a jury could go any which way on damages though.

 

[Cehrabehra]

ImDanny, saying that circumcision = mutilation as though it's a fact is offensive; that is your opinion, it is not fact. Many religions and cultures would beg to differ with you. Please have some sensitivity with that--these are religious and ethnic values and traditions we're talking about. Do you believe Jewish couples think, "We're planning on mutilating our son when he is born"? As a circumcised male, I am very thankful that I am circumcised. I certainly don't feel upset or feel like my parents mutilated my body in any way. And as for the cleanliness issue, well let's just say that my fiancee has mentioned before that her ex-husband was uncircumcised and she found his scent/hygiene very off-putting down there. Keeping things clean is apparently easier said than done.

In any case, our beliefs on circumcision have no relevance to this case. And I'm pretty confident in saying the judge will not be awarding this couple millions.

actually - the fact that it is mutilation is the fact. Look up the word mutilation. It fits. Deciding whether or not you're okay with doing it - that is what would fall under opinion. You got it backwards.

 

[Arkteia]

OK, let me comment on circumcision. Has any of you heard of phimosis? It is an inflammatory condition when you can not pull back the foreskin. Basically, the head of the penis is "strangulated". Anything can cause it; some boys are born with naturally tight foreskin. Then the chance of developing phimosis is much higher.

Jews and Arabs practice circumcision. Is this a stupid whim of two very old ethnic/religious groups? Both of them came from nomads, bedouins of the desert. If you imagine riding in a saddle for 5 hours, in heat... the chance of phimosis increases. And then in can cause deadly complications which start from inability to urinate to severe infection. People died from it. Hence circumcision. Most of their rules have a reason behind it (take not eating pork or shellfish, for example).

In general there is nothing wrong in circumcision. Certainly not mutilation. And both groups, obviously, were able to experience sexual pleasure. Read about King Solomon. He surely had enough wives and concubines! And "Song of Songs" is a great example of love passion.

Also, there is practically no cervical cancer in Israel; it is explained by male circumcision. These days we have vaccinations for teenagers and, hopefully, they will bring down the rate of this very severe cancer. But circumcision protects women, too.

I am totally against comparing it with female circumcision. There is a support group of women who had been mutilated this way. They come from Africa. I have spoken to them. It is beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to say, that the procedures are different, the results are different and the goals are different.

Going against parents' wishes is a basis for a suit, but let us not call it mutilation. A medical mistake, and not a deadly one. I would also like to look at the consent form. Since hospital staff misread it, maybe people filling it out were dyslexic? Had a problem with expressing themselves in written form? We shall never know, of course, but have you heard about "occidere nolite bonum est"?

 

[Cehrabehra]

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Edited to fix transposed words.

Again though, it's subjective... because not everyone agrees. The penis is not crippled, disfigured, or destroyed. It still is fully functioning.

If that is the case, then cutting a baby's umbilical cord, breast implants/reductions, ear piercing, rhinoplasty, c-sections, and removal of gallbladders and appendix are ALL mutilation as well.

Well, not quite "fully".
With many of the nerves permanently removed from the bulls-eye of pleasure sex does not feel as good.
Also since the unit cannot slide back and forth within the looser skin there is more friction and less pleasure for the woman too. ... well, from what I've read.

I've been with more than one of each(haha not sure what that says about me) and the whole foreskin=dirty thing is just BS. I will say that it is my opinion that it is better for all parties involved to have all natural parts intact. Leave the surgeries for necessity.

 

[goCubsgo]

OK, let me comment on circumcision. Has any of you heard of phimosis? It is an inflammatory condition when you can not pull back the foreskin. Basically, the head of the penis is "strangulated". Anything can cause it; some boys are born with naturally tight foreskin. Then the chance of developing phimosis is much higher.

Jews and Arabs practice circumcision. Is this a stupid whim of two very old ethnic/religious groups? Both of them came from nomads, bedouins of the desert. If you imagine riding in a saddle for 5 hours, in heat... the chance of phimosis increases. And then in can cause deadly complications which start from inability to urinate to severe infection. People died from it. Hence circumcision. Most of their rules have a reason behind it (take not eating pork or shellfish, for example).

In general there is nothing wrong in circumcision. Certainly not mutilation. And both groups, obviously, were able to experience sexual pleasure. Read about King Solomon. He surely had enough wives and concubines! And "Song of Songs" is a great example of love passion.

Also, there is practically no cervical cancer in Israel; it is explained by male circumcision. These days we have vaccinations for teenagers and, hopefully, they will bring down the rate of this very severe cancer. But circumcision protects women, too.

I am totally against comparing it with female circumcision. There is a support group of women who had been mutilated this way. They come from Africa. I have spoken to them. It is beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to say, that the procedures are different, the results are different and the goals are different.

Going against parents' wishes is a basis for a suit, but let us not call it mutilation. A medical mistake, and not a deadly one. I would also like to look at the consent form. Since hospital staff misread it, maybe people filling it out were dyslexic? Had a problem with expressing themselves in written form? We shall never know, of course, but have you heard about "occidere nolite bonum est"?

I like your entire post crasru. Very sensible and reasonable.

Cehra, mutilation is a highly-charged, flammable, and accusatory word. It has no place in a civil conversation. Do you want to tell all the PS moms who post on these boards that they mutilated their infant sons? And no, I didn't get anything backward.

 

[princesss]

OK, let me comment on circumcision. Has any of you heard of phimosis? It is an inflammatory condition when you can not pull back the foreskin. Basically, the head of the penis is "strangulated". Anything can cause it; some boys are born with naturally tight foreskin. Then the chance of developing phimosis is much higher.

Jews and Arabs practice circumcision. Is this a stupid whim of two very old ethnic/religious groups? Both of them came from nomads, bedouins of the desert. If you imagine riding in a saddle for 5 hours, in heat... the chance of phimosis increases. And then in can cause deadly complications which start from inability to urinate to severe infection. People died from it. Hence circumcision. Most of their rules have a reason behind it (take not eating pork or shellfish, for example).

It may have been developed as a protection against these circumstances, but what is the reason for *continuing* it? If it helps people living in the desert, perhaps it should only be practiced in the desert. It's helped reduce the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, too, but that has little effect on the life of most circumsized men in the US. Should we make permanent decisions for somebody based on a life they won't be living? Or should we let them grow up and decide for themselves whether or not it makes sense? We don't pre-emptively remove somebody's appendix because it could possibly rupture at some point, so I do not see the sense in pre-emptively removing the foreskin.

 

[risingsun]

I think suing for surgical malpractice is reasonable. Suing for battery not so much.

I agree with this dragonfly. It's the battery and the 'lifelong consequences' which I feel are a bit extreme. There's no doubt I would be horribly upset though if something were done to my baby without my consent.

This is my position, as well. This is a medical procedure, not a case of battery. It is also mandatory in certain religions, who certainly do not consider it a crime. Some parents have it done for hygienic and health concerns. Since the procedure was performed without informed consent, it is malpractice. If this were my child, I would sue for medical malpractice. The rest of the charges are specious.

 

[lucyandroger]

I think suing for surgical malpractice is reasonable. Suing for battery not so much.

I agree with this dragonfly. It's the battery and the 'lifelong consequences' which I feel are a bit extreme. There's no doubt I would be horribly upset though if something were done to my baby without my consent.

This is my position, as well. This is a medical procedure, not a case of battery. It is also mandatory in certain religions, who certainly do not consider it a crime. Some parents have it done for hygienic and health concerns. Since the procedure was performed without informed consent, it is malpractice. If this were my child, I would sue for medical malpractice. The rest of the charges are specious.

I think that some of you are confused by the term battery. There is criminal battery and then there is tortious battery - 2 different things. The parents are bringing a civil suit against the hospital/doctor for tortious battery. I highly doubt the district attorney's office is going to bring criminal charges.

 

[Cehrabehra]

OK, let me comment on circumcision. Has any of you heard of phimosis? It is an inflammatory condition when you can not pull back the foreskin. Basically, the head of the penis is "strangulated". Anything can cause it; some boys are born with naturally tight foreskin. Then the chance of developing phimosis is much higher.

Jews and Arabs practice circumcision. Is this a stupid whim of two very old ethnic/religious groups? Both of them came from nomads, bedouins of the desert. If you imagine riding in a saddle for 5 hours, in heat... the chance of phimosis increases. And then in can cause deadly complications which start from inability to urinate to severe infection. People died from it. Hence circumcision. Most of their rules have a reason behind it (take not eating pork or shellfish, for example).

In general there is nothing wrong in circumcision. Certainly not mutilation. And both groups, obviously, were able to experience sexual pleasure. Read about King Solomon. He surely had enough wives and concubines! And "Song of Songs" is a great example of love passion.

Also, there is practically no cervical cancer in Israel; it is explained by male circumcision. These days we have vaccinations for teenagers and, hopefully, they will bring down the rate of this very severe cancer. But circumcision protects women, too.

I am totally against comparing it with female circumcision. There is a support group of women who had been mutilated this way. They come from Africa. I have spoken to them. It is beyond the scope of this discussion. Suffice it to say, that the procedures are different, the results are different and the goals are different.

Going against parents' wishes is a basis for a suit, but let us not call it mutilation. A medical mistake, and not a deadly one. I would also like to look at the consent form. Since hospital staff misread it, maybe people filling it out were dyslexic? Had a problem with expressing themselves in written form? We shall never know, of course, but have you heard about "occidere nolite bonum est"?

I like your entire post crasru. Very sensible and reasonable.

Cehra, mutilation is a highly-charged, flammable, and accusatory word. It has no place in a civil conversation. Do you want to tell all the PS moms who post on these boards that they mutilated their infant sons? And no, I didn't get anything backward.

Yeah, I would say that. There are a lot of forms of mutilation - and I'm guilty of it myself. You can't get caught up in the semantics of it and justify it through denial. Just own it. I may be against it, but I will freely admit it isn't the biggest deal. Just own it and who cares what anyone else thinks. This is just what I think. And yeah, I think it is mutilation and I'm totally against it. Pierced my daughter's ears as a baby though and I acknowledge my own hypocrisy on that. Just own it.

 

[Fly Girl]

OK, let me comment on circumcision. Has any of you heard of phimosis? It is an inflammatory condition when you can not pull back the foreskin. Basically, the head of the penis is "strangulated". Anything can cause it; some boys are born with naturally tight foreskin. Then the chance of developing phimosis is much higher.

Yes, crasu, I have heard of phimosis. We did not have our son circumcised at birth, but whenever we brought him in for various infant checkups the doctors would ask us if he had trouble urinating. He didn't, but still they would ask us the same question at the next checkup. Finally, when he was about 2 1/2 years old, we asked the doctors why they kept asking us about his urination? They explained that he had a tight foreskin, and told us all of the problems that could cause in the future. We immediately scheduled him to be circumsized, because we felt, as parents, it was our job to give him every advantage we could in life.

We had been on the fence about circumcision, but finding out that our son had a medical condition that would be completely cured by it tipped the balance. I wish we had been told sooner. Fortunately, our son was still young enough that he does not remember his circumcision. Much better to have it at 2 1/2 than as an emergency surgery as an adult. I think the doctors were afraid to bring up circumcision thinking that we were violently opposed to it, so they never told us until we asked.

 

[Circe]

mutilation is a highly-charged, flammable, and accusatory word. It has no place in a civil conversation. Do you want to tell all the PS moms who post on these boards that they mutilated their infant sons? And no, I didn't get anything backward.

"Civil" conversation is now defined as ... what, conversation that doesn't make anybody question their actions? Specious argument.

I wouldn't go around accosting random parents for circumcising their sons even though I disagree with it violently, no. There's enough history there that it is a charged topic, and a choice for each family to make: I happen to think it's a bad choice, as is my right. I would back up this particular family in choosing to sue the hospital for going against their wishes, since they didn't opt for circumcision. You're talking about two different things.

BTW - I find the discussion of how sex with cut vs. uncut men is for the ladies to be kind of off-topic. It's more a question of what it's like for the dudes, no?

 

[Tuckins1]

I think that this world is incredibly litigious these days, but in this case, I do think the parents have the right to sue. I would if it were my child and something irreversible was done against my wishes.

 

[fieryred33143]

I think that this world is incredibly litigious these days, but in this case, I do think the parents have the right to sue. I would if it were my child and something irreversible was done against my wishes.

Yup.

I have my opinions of this hospital and its staff. There's a reason why I didn't make that my hospital choice to have my baby.

 

[dragonfly411]

mutilation is a highly-charged, flammable, and accusatory word. It has no place in a civil conversation. Do you want to tell all the PS moms who post on these boards that they mutilated their infant sons? And no, I didn't get anything backward.

"Civil" conversation is now defined as ... what, conversation that doesn't make anybody question their actions? Specious argument.

I wouldn't go around accosting random parents for circumcising their sons even though I disagree with it violently, no. There's enough history there that it is a charged topic, and a choice for each family to make: I happen to think it's a bad choice, as is my right. I would back up this particular family in choosing to sue the hospital for going against their wishes, since they didn't opt for circumcision. You're talking about two different things.

BTW - I find the discussion of how sex with cut vs. uncut men is for the ladies to be kind of off-topic. It's more a question of what it's like for the dudes, no?

And I find the continuous mention of circumcising = mutilation to be kind of off topic too no? I'm betting many of the parents on this board would feel rather insulted. As someone who wants to have children some day, and who is ok with it, I am insulted.


The topic was whether the parents have right to sue, and for what reasons. Let's go ahead and get back to that.

I stand by what I think, that battery is a bit over the top. Again, they did not go into it willingly causing harm. Battery to me is someone hitting someone, attempting to stab someone. I think suing for millions as battery isn't correct. Suing for malpractice sure. I still don't think millions is justified though.