Baby circumcised against parents' wishes = lawsuit??

[Kaleigh]

..... besides, sex in a hot tub is MUCH better with an uncircumcised man

Ha!!! I wouldn't know...
But how did the discussion go from circumsion of a baby that wasn't supposed to be circumsized, to a female baby's labia???

I haven't heard of this in the states.... I heard of it on Oprah... To me THAT is barbaric...

Maybe I am setting myself up as a hypocrite. I had my son circumsized, as that's what we do... I did look into not doing it. But everyone in the family is, and husband felt strongly about him being circumsized...

And the argument that they can do this later in life?? Is that for real?? Sounds very painful to me.... And what teenager would sign up for that??
Just sayin...

JMHO, don't throw stones at me!!!

 

[Cehrabehra]

..... besides, sex in a hot tub is MUCH better with an uncircumcised man

Ha!!! I wouldn't know...
But how did the discussion go from circumsion of a baby that wasn't supposed to be circumsized, to a female baby's labia???

I haven't heard of this in the states.... I heard of it on Oprah... To me THAT is barbaric...

Maybe I am setting myself up as a hypocrite. I had my son circumsized, as that's what we do... I did look into not doing it. But everyone in the family is, and husband felt strongly about him being circumsized...

And the argument that they can do this later in life?? Is that for real?? Sounds very painful to me.... And what teenager would sign up for that??
Just sayin...

JMHO, don't throw stones at me!!!

Well, like all good topics there has been morphing - but kenny has told us that we shouldn't allow censorship haha Anyway, women getting their labia trimmed up for a variety of health and cosmetic reasons is the physiological equivalent to circumcision. Removing a girl's clitoris and CALLing IT CIRCUMCISION IS LIKE SAYING THAT REMOVING THE ENTIRE GLANS OF THE PENIS IS CIRCUMCISION.

I really don't care all that much what people do - I have an opinion on it, a strong opinion, but I am not the type of person who believes that my opinion should be legislation or someone else should agree. I DO however feel a very strong need to level the playing field. comparing clitoral removal with circumcision is not the same thing. Labiaplasty has become a pretty common thing for both cosmetic reasons (some believe that inner labia that hang lower and outside of the inner labia are as unsightly as a foreskin and just as prone to increasing risk of STD, bacteria, yeast, etc .) So in the discussion of circumcision it is only appropriate to discuss the genuinely equal female version. To me this topic is like alcohol and pot - if you think both should be illegal - fine, if you think neither should be illegal - fine. But thinking that one is okay and the other is not isn't really looking at the whole picture.

 

[kenny]

..... besides, sex in a hot tub is MUCH better with an uncircumcised man

Where did you read that?

 

[monarch64]

There are many other facts about the clitoris. You can google them.

OmG. Never mind, and also...I can't believe I was even thinking about getting into this discussion.

 

[monarch64]

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.

Ok I also forgot to mention that narrow foreskin could make coitus impossible (it does not retract back during it) so people would have to undergo circumcision at adolescence or adulthood. Talk about torture! Historically, Louis XVI of France had it so he could not contemplate sexual encounter with Marie-Antoinette till he had circumcision was performed. By that time he was so driven by shame that he actually succumbed to all her wishes. Her behavior was one of the reasons for French Revolution (although, of course, not the main one). I am going on a tangent here but probably not so much. It is more common than we think.

Oh, and for these of you who want to see how phimosis looks like. Sorry could not find anything better. And gonorrhea is not common these days, but any infection could cause it (or mere lack of hygiene).

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/phil/html/phimosis/5366.html

Is "more common than we think" a good enough reason to permanently alter a person without any proof that this will be a problem?

This will probably make me a horrible person in the eyes of the PS community but I am willing to be very very honest here and say that I am happy that my husband to be and any other man I have had relations with has been circumcized.

Had nothing to do with jewelry/diamonds. Had nothing to do with how much we loved each other. Had everything to do with NOTHING.

Whether you or I choose to circumcize our sons, for whatever reasons, does honestly imo not have an effect on what happens to them later in life.

My personal experiences are totally baloney/melarky/bullshit in comparison to yours. Wishing you all the very best in life.

 

[Brown.Eyed.Girl]

The parents have the right to sue. But personally I don't think it's appropriate. And I am a lawyer. Just because you have the right to do so doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

And my reasoning is based on 1) won't change anything; 2) don't need the money to take care of baby due to mistake; and 3) what others have said about impact on doctors and our medical system and malpractice insurance.

That is my practical, objective POV. Of course the parents have every right to be angry and devastated, but I just don't think it warrants millions. And it IS different than accidentally cutting off a leg or the wrong arm or something. However barbaric you might find the practice, the RESULT is quite different and the impact on the life is different.

I respect both sides of this argument, but I will admit that I just don't find it to be that dramatic of a decision, either way. I think it is the right of the parents to decide. That is our job, to weigh the pros and cons and do what we think is best for our kids. And I think it should be between the parents and the doctor, and I don't think we should be legislating morality here and telling people what is "right" and "wrong".

This expresses my view perfectly (and probably more cogently than I could have put it).

 

[Cehrabehra]

..... besides, sex in a hot tub is MUCH better with an uncircumcised man

Where did you read that?

Haha - personal experience... I could explain why this is so, in detail, if you'd like....

 

[Dancing Fire]

..... besides, sex in a hot tub is MUCH better with an uncircumcised man

Where did you read that?

Haha - personal experience... I could explain why this is so, in detail, if you'd like....

yeah,and...???...

 

[MonkeyPie]

The whole "sex is better if you are uncut" thing is BS for one simple reason - unless you have experienced it BOTH WAYS you cannot legitimately say that. Yes, there are nerve endings there that are lost when you get cut, but I don't see any men the world over complaining about loss of sensation when they have been that way their whole lives. My DH is cut and he most certainly does not have any problems. Personal opinion about your own junk/your SO's junk does not a fact make.

My problem with this whole thing is that it happened when the baby was 8 days old and in the NICU for something unrelated. I want to know why they pulled the baby out of the NICU to perform this thing - and thought it was ok, clearly - when I know for a fact that it is protocol to go over, and over, and over the procedure with mom and dad before doing it. When Micah was born, I was spoken to multiple times, and both my husband and I had to be there when they came to get him for the procedure just in case I was doing it "behind my husband's back." Cause that happens, I guess. So I have no idea how there could have been a mix up unless somebody got all high and mighty about it and tried to make a determination for the parents without any discussion.

And all the talk about getting it done when they are older and can make the choice? Would YOU go under the knife in such a delicate area when you are old enough to REMEMBER IT? Probably not. I know 5 men/boys that have had to have it done when they are older (the most recent was a 3 year old) because of phimosis or lack of proper care from mom and dad. Foreskin tightening is real, it is not easy to fix, and most of the time it is extremely painful. No, it isn't terribly common, but I did it to Micah because I was terrified that this would happen to him and I would have felt awful.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Regarding the allegedly misread consent form, it's entirely possible that the mother in this case did fill out the form, did have conversations with the hospital staff re: not electing this surgery, etc., but that the hospital picked up the wrong baby for the surgery. In other words, they mixed up this kid with someone else's kid who was actually supposed to have the surgery. So, instead of admitting that, the hospital says they misread the consent form (i.e. misread the baby name, did not check bracelet bar code, if they use such things), which sounds a lot better than "hey, sorry, we picked up the wrong baby, oops, mistakes happen."

It will likely be some time before the facts are made clear, but curious if that would change anyone's opinion re: whether the hospital should be sued. I still think the parents should sue regardless, if for no other reason than to force the hospital to evaluate its practices. Ultimately, the case will settle. The hospital has already admitted its mistake. The parents are not going to bet on a jury's damages award being higher than the best they can get from the hospital through negotiations. It will be a matter of years, however.

 

[artdecogirl]

Just some info here, wether there is a lawsuit or not the facility needs to address the problem to maintain their license. This is a reportable error, so they need to report it to the state, do a analysis of the error and a correction plan, the state also comes in and does a investigation, the correction plan has to show what they are going to do to not let it happen again and it is followed up with to see if they are following the plan. as many have said they were asked multi times when they had their childs done , they must have some flaws in their policy and procedure to allow this to happen or as someone said, wrong baby or they just have the worst luck ever to have so many checks fail in the system.

 

[Laila619]

The whole "sex is better if you are uncut" thing is BS for one simple reason - unless you have experienced it BOTH WAYS you cannot legitimately say that. Yes, there are nerve endings there that are lost when you get cut, but I don't see any men the world over complaining about loss of sensation when they have been that way their whole lives. My DH is cut and he most certainly does not have any problems. Personal opinion about your own junk/your SO's junk does not a fact make.

+ 1. Pretty sure my DH has never had problems either. But yeah, a guy can't make that statement unless he has experienced it both ways.

Also, I know of a couple who had to circumcise their two year old, because he started developing UTIs and the pediatrician recommended getting it done. Much worse to get it done at two than at 3 days old though! The whole "it doesn't provide any health or hygiene benefits" argument is BS too.

 

[dragonfly411]

The whole "sex is better if you are uncut" thing is BS for one simple reason - unless you have experienced it BOTH WAYS you cannot legitimately say that. Yes, there are nerve endings there that are lost when you get cut, but I don't see any men the world over complaining about loss of sensation when they have been that way their whole lives. My DH is cut and he most certainly does not have any problems. Personal opinion about your own junk/your SO's junk does not a fact make.

+ 1. Pretty sure my DH has never had problems either. But yeah, a guy can't make that statement unless he has experienced it both ways.

Also, I know of a couple who had to circumcise their two year old, because he started developing UTIs and the pediatrician recommended getting it done. Much worse to get it done at two than at 3 days old though! The whole "it doesn't provide any health or hygiene benefits" argument is BS too.

 

[diamondbuggy]

The whole "sex is better if you are uncut" thing is BS for one simple reason - unless you have experienced it BOTH WAYS you cannot legitimately say that. Yes, there are nerve endings there that are lost when you get cut, but I don't see any men the world over complaining about loss of sensation when they have been that way their whole lives. My DH is cut and he most certainly does not have any problems. Personal opinion about your own junk/your SO's junk does not a fact make.

+ 1. Pretty sure my DH has never had problems either. But yeah, a guy can't make that statement unless he has experienced it both ways.

Also, I know of a couple who had to circumcise their two year old, because he started developing UTIs and the pediatrician recommended getting it done. Much worse to get it done at two than at 3 days old though! The whole "it doesn't provide any health or hygiene benefits" argument is BS too.

+ 1.

I really liked your whole post MonkeyPie!

 

[Cehrabehra]

I see a lot of justifications but that's all they are... I have yet to see anyone compare this realistically to doing it to a girl... and until I see people doing it equally to both sexes, all I hear (see) is a bunch of rationalizations for a tradition founded in antiquity with no real basis in modern reality.

 

[dragonfly411]

Cehra - I believe the differences for girls were pointed out earlier I.E. the labia vs the clitoris, and their equivalents in male counterparts. I don't know what health benefits are involved with the labia but I plan to go look so that we can all know if there are any.

 

[monarch64]

I see a lot of justifications but that's all they are... I have yet to see anyone compare this realistically to doing it to a girl... and until I see people doing it equally to both sexes, all I hear (see) is a bunch of rationalizations for a tradition founded in antiquity with no real basis in modern reality.

Wow. Your argument is totally nutz. You're comparing apples to vacuums, and it's insane. Sorry for the personal attack, but this is one I feel is well worth getting booted out of PS for. If you can't even recognize that the comparison is COMPLETELY different, then that is on you.

Babies' foreskin is used for skin grafts, etc. I don't think people who cut off clits (sorry, ETA: and sew vaginas shut) in African countries are necessarily selling the parts to hospitals for the good of the world.

 

[somethingshiny]

cehra~ Even if male circ is ONLY based in tradition for some, it doesn't make it wrong.

And the whole mutilation thing is out of bounds. My son had to have a tonsillectomy at 2.5 yrs old. By definition, it's mutilation, but it was necessary due to the amount of infections and subsequent pain he endured. Obviously this is different than circ, but the term mutilation can still be applied to a necessary medical procedure. The term is being used as a way to garner support for the "barbarism" of circ.

I don't know about labia trimming except what I've seen for cosmetic reasons. I read about a woman whose labia was so long it would get caught during intercourse. Obviously most women don't have this problem and therefore a common procedure to reduce it wouldn't be necessary.

Some men never have problems being uncirced. However, the risk for an uncirced man having problems is far greater than for a circed man. (regarding STD's, UTI, phimosis, etc.) The risk for a woman having problems directly due to the labia isn't significant.

 

[monarch64]

Also. If someone ( a doctor, no less) said "shit happens," I would not take it lying down. Sorry, you just brought it upon yourself.

You cannot just CUT someone and surgerize them without permission, no matter whether it was intentional or not. If a doctor fails to process written material correctly and proceeds with something that is Ok IN HIS MIND then that is HIS fault.

 

[lucyandroger]

Also. If someone ( a doctor, no less) said "shit happens," I would not take it lying down. Sorry, you just brought it upon yourself.

You cannot just CUT someone and surgerize them without permission, no matter whether it was intentional or not. If a doctor fails to process written material correctly and proceeds with something that is Ok IN HIS MIND then that is HIS fault.

I agree...really whether circ is wrong or right, could cure every ailment or will be the downfall of society...the crux of the matter is a surgery was performed without permission.

ETA - Monarch, I just want to point out Cehra's first post on this page to you. She recognized that female circ and male circ are not the same thing, which is why she has been talking about the trimming of a girl's labia as a comparison to male circ instead.

 

[fieryred33143]

Also. If someone ( a doctor, no less) said "shit happens," I would not take it lying down. Sorry, you just brought it upon yourself.

You cannot just CUT someone and surgerize them without permission, no matter whether it was intentional or not. If a doctor fails to process written material correctly and proceeds with something that is Ok IN HIS MIND then that is HIS fault.

I agree...really whether circ is wrong or right, could cure every ailment or will be the downfall of society...the crux of the matter is a surgery was performed without permission.

Yup. And I think what's going on with this case is that a lot of people are seeing the surgery as "not a big deal" and completely dismissing the hospital's neglect to properly review documentation. It doesn't matter whether the surgery is a big deal or not. There was no permission given.

 

[somethingshiny]

I don't think the consensus is that the surgery isn't a big deal. If any medical procedure is done without consent, it is inherently wrong. (remember the tubal ligation thread?) I think the thread has begun debating the PRACTICE of circumcision in general.

 

[Laila619]

I don't think the consensus is that the surgery isn't a big deal. If any medical procedure is done without consent, it is inherently wrong. (remember the tubal ligation thread?) I think the thread has begun debating the PRACTICE of circumcision in general.

Yep. I think we ALL agree that the circ against the parents' wishes was wrong, and that the parents should be mad. We don't all agree how far they should take it though.

Now it's turned into a debate on circumcision.

 

[monarch64]

Also. If someone ( a doctor, no less) said "shit happens," I would not take it lying down. Sorry, you just brought it upon yourself.

You cannot just CUT someone and surgerize them without permission, no matter whether it was intentional or not. If a doctor fails to process written material correctly and proceeds with something that is Ok IN HIS MIND then that is HIS fault.

I agree...really whether circ is wrong or right, could cure every ailment or will be the downfall of society...the crux of the matter is a surgery was performed without permission.

ETA - Monarch, I just want to point out Cehra's first post on this page to you. She recognized that female circ and male circ are not the same thing, which is why she has been talking about the trimming of a girl's labia as a comparison to male circ instead.

Thanks, L&R...I was revisiting this discussion and searching for things that I unfortunately couldn't find before I posted my responses.

Cehra, I apologize -- I WAS out of line. I feel really strongly about female circumcision and especially in comparison to male circumcision. I'm sorry if I took it out on you unnecessarily.

 

[ericad]

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but just wanted to post my opinion on the matter. For those of us opposed to circumcision (DH and I are in this camp, vehemently), the "accidental" circumcision of one's baby is mutilation/disfigurement in our book. I would react the same way I'd react if my son "accidentally" had his finger or toe amputated or something else along those lines. It's a very serious matter to us, and being in a minority position on this subject makes us even more cautious and sensitive.

I would be utterly devastated for my child and absolutely would seek legal recourse. Punitive action will cause other hospitals and medical professionals to take the extra precautions necessary to prevent these types of mistakes. IT IS A SERIOUS MATTER and frankly, I'm really disappointed to read some of the flip responses I've seen on this thread.

 

[Tuckins1]

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.

You are so welcome to your own opinion! I can absolutely see how a man would have more of an idea of what it's like than a woman, and I respect that.

 

[Autumnovember]

The whole "sex is better if you are uncut" thing is BS for one simple reason - unless you have experienced it BOTH WAYS you cannot legitimately say that. Yes, there are nerve endings there that are lost when you get cut, but I don't see any men the world over complaining about loss of sensation when they have been that way their whole lives. My DH is cut and he most certainly does not have any problems. Personal opinion about your own junk/your SO's junk does not a fact make.

My problem with this whole thing is that it happened when the baby was 8 days old and in the NICU for something unrelated. I want to know why they pulled the baby out of the NICU to perform this thing - and thought it was ok, clearly - when I know for a fact that it is protocol to go over, and over, and over the procedure with mom and dad before doing it. When Micah was born, I was spoken to multiple times, and both my husband and I had to be there when they came to get him for the procedure just in case I was doing it "behind my husband's back." Cause that happens, I guess. So I have no idea how there could have been a mix up unless somebody got all high and mighty about it and tried to make a determination for the parents without any discussion.

And all the talk about getting it done when they are older and can make the choice? Would YOU go under the knife in such a delicate area when you are old enough to REMEMBER IT? Probably not. I know 5 men/boys that have had to have it done when they are older (the most recent was a 3 year old) because of phimosis or lack of proper care from mom and dad. Foreskin tightening is real, it is not easy to fix, and most of the time it is extremely painful. No, it isn't terribly common, but I did it to Micah because I was terrified that this would happen to him and I would have felt awful.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for posting your thoughts

 

[kenny]

The whole "sex is better if you are uncut" thing is BS for one simple reason - unless you have experienced it BOTH WAYS you cannot legitimately say that.

My SO was circumcised a couple years ago at age 40.
He reports much less sensation.

Sample size: 1 - but there it is.

 

[Autumnovember]

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but just wanted to post my opinion on the matter. For those of us opposed to circumcision (DH and I are in this camp, vehemently), the "accidental" circumcision of one's baby is mutilation/disfigurement in our book. I would react the same way I'd react if my son "accidentally" had his finger or toe amputated or something else along those lines. It's a very serious matter to us, and being in a minority position on this subject makes us even more cautious and sensitive.

I would be utterly devastated for my child and absolutely would seek legal recourse. Punitive action will cause other hospitals and medical professionals to take the extra precautions necessary to prevent these types of mistakes. IT IS A SERIOUS MATTER and frankly, I'm really disappointed to read some of the flip responses I've seen on this thread.

I think everyone here or about 98% of the people that have posted, agreed that it IS a serious matter. Whether it happened by mistake or because of sheer laziness to read through consent forms, its a serious matter and nobody is doubting that. What people are debating is whether or not it is considered battery or not. Anyone can sit here and say they're disappointed with other peoples opinions and thoughts but I think it is important to take everyones thoughts as just that, OPINIONS.

 

[Autumnovember]

The whole "sex is better if you are uncut" thing is BS for one simple reason - unless you have experienced it BOTH WAYS you cannot legitimately say that.

My SO was circumcised a couple years ago at age 40.
He reports much less sensation.

Sample size: 1 - but there it is.

Was it a personal choice or medical? Don't have to share if you're not comfortable..