Circumcision Opponents Use the Legal System and Legislatures
I find this to be more of a legal issue than a circumcision issue.
Can a person sue someone for failing to change their mind, for failing to tell them “enough” about the pain etc.?
Can a child sue his parents for decisions made in good faith because some court decides that they were not in his best interests?
I think the implications of an affirmative answer on either of these questions would be staggering.
The doctrine at question is “informed consent” which generally requires doctors to fully inform patients of the potential benefits and detriments to a surgical procedure. To succeed in a malpractice action based on the doctrine of informed consent the plaintiff must plead and ultimately prove four essential elements: (1) the physician had a duty to disclose material risks; (2) he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks; (3) as a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment they otherwise would not have consented to; and (4) plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment.
That standard could apply to circumcision cases as well. If the parents were not fully informed of the consequences of the surgery, they may be able to win. I just find it hard to believe that the parents didn’t understand the implications of circumcision, but hey, there are all kinds of idiots out there. The implications aren’t all that staggering, it’s a well-used legal standard that is now being applied to circumcision.
As for children suing their parents for failure to act in best interests, I would agree that would open up a whole new ugly can of worms. My parents wouldn’t get me a dog, so I’m going to sue. I think allowing children to sue their parents may be a bit more troubling.
If the father were circumcised, do you think that they would have a more difficult time proving that they didn’t understand the consequences of the procedure?
One problem that will be faced by the plaintiffs: how, exactly, do you convey the pain involved? The little boy in question can’t possibly remember his circumcision, any more than I can remember mine.
Did his hurt? Did mine? Presumably, yes, but neither of us has any memory of it, and it didn’t cause either of us any long-term harm. So, a suit based on the contention that “the doctors didn’t tell us how much this word hurt” is on very shaky ground.
Moreover, the kid was born in 1997, so he can’t be more than 6 now- how the heck can anyone know yet if the circumcision has affected his ability to feel “sexual sensation”?
Good Point. However, from the article, the consequences they are suing about are the pain to the infant and the “dimished sexual sensation,” both of which the father woudn’t be able to know first hand. As astorian pointed out, the father probably doesn’t remember the amount of pain that occurred as an infant, and thus wouldn’t be “informed”, and the father would have no knowledge of the dimished sexual sensation firsthand either. He would only know one. I also have a problem, again as astorian pointed out, how can you sue for a potential, speculative, and future harm, in sexual sensation. I fear it would be a circus of men testifying about how good sex is with a foreskin. Ugh! Of course, a platform for a viewpoint is what the attorney for the family appears to want, so he’s probably fine by it.
Somebody call JDT.
I understand that. But it seems to me that this case is attempting to expand the definition of “fully” inform - I noted the term “enough” in the OP.
As you and others have noted, the implications of circumcision are not exactly a secret, and if the mother signed the consent form you would have to think there was some additional notification by the doc. And I don’t think you can win in court by claiming to be such an idiot that you needed more info than the normal person.
It seems to me that the parents in this case had pretty much the same view of circumcision as most people at the time the kid was born. But now, having been convinced that the anti-circumcision viewpoint is the correct one, the mother is attempting to fault the doctor for not having held to that viewpoint at the time, and warned her off. I think this type of reasoning can wreak havoc as well, if it prevails.
Of course, had I read the article earlier I would have noticed that the boy’s father is deceased.
Should the jury decide there wasn’t informed consent, it will be interesting to see how they quantify damages.
Oh well. Tug Ahoy!
Easy. Show a videotape of a baby being circumcized.
I’ve never seen a baby circumcised, but I’ve witnessed one getting shots. Does the baby have a much different reaction? If you can’t tell the difference, should we assume that circumcision hurts about the same as a shot?
Second, is there any scientific evidence that sexual sensation is affected that much? Or at all?
IANAman, but given that male humans are born with foreskins, shouldn’t the default be to leave them there until that male human is old enough to give his informed consent about whether to remove it?
I don’t know about suing the hospital, they acted on the legal guardians’ instructions. But what about suing the guardians (parents), for not acting in the best interests of their ward (child)?
[This is not to get into a huge Circumcision: yes or no? debate, just to highlight the issues of choice and consent, as they directly concern the litigant/victim(?)]
Jury selection should be interesting. I just can’t believe the judge has decided to let it go to trial.
I don’t even want to think about that voir dire. “Tell me sir, are you a complete man? Have any members of your immediate family been circumcised? Do you have a personal opinion that cannot be altered by the evidence produced before you that a circumcised man enjoys whoopee less than one who has not been circumcised? Your Honor, I move to strike for cause.” Oh, yea, it’s going to be fun. Especially if counsel or judge expect to see the thing–in camara, I suppose.
[prospective jury member Beavis]
He he. He said member.
[/prospective jury member Beavis]
From what I’ve been told… [UNDERSTATEMENT] yes. [/UNDERSTATEMENT]
I presume there may be testimony on this point by those who were circumcised as adults. Yes, it does happen.
If a piece of the body exists that is so sensitive as to enhance sexual pleasure, do you think it would hurt more to cut it off without anesthetic than it would hurt to get a shot?
I think that since there are benefits to circumcision (reduced cancer risk of the penis) that out weight any distress of a baby my SO and I are for circumcision. The sexual sensation argument, for me, is a straw man. Barring any medical problems, most men (stereotypically maybe) have no problems feeling good during coitus. In fact, feeling less probably is better in this case as it prolongs sexual intercourse. Do we really want all our boys to be like the teen in “American Pie”?
I agree it probably hurts (like hell!) but considering all the other weird things we do to each other (tattoos, piercing etc) I figure it’s not a biggie (IMO).
I’m really not particularly interested in advocating silly lawsuits…
…but how can you possibly compare not giving a child a dog to removing a healthy part of another person’s body?!?
Where I live, tattoos and piercings aren’t usually given to newborn babies. How does it work in your country?
Your contention regarding benefits is arguable, at best. Many medical associations disclaim the idea that the benefits of elective circumcision outweigh the risks of complications due to circumcision, including the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Before anyone decides to cut off a perfectly good body part of their children, they should check out the The Circumcision Resource Center among other sites.
Perhaps, but you may want to check out these recent medical studies regarding circumcision (listed and summarized at this link)
So now you’re hoping it is not a strawman?
Do we really want to resort to elective surgery to cut off a body part to keep our children from being oversexed? You took a page right from Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, who promoted circumcision and corn flakes as a cure for masturbation.
Regarding treatments for "self-abuse, Dr. Kellogg had this to say:
One wonders why he favored male genital mutilation and not female genital mutilation.
Surely you jest. Would you pierce or tattoo your baby? That is a truly perplexing comparison.
You plan to tattoo your infant?
I think circumcision should wait. I hope my hypothetical future wife agrees. I don’t want to have to get in a debate about surgically altering our child’s genetalia.
While I was circumsized as an infant, I have spoken to a man who had the proceedure done when he was a teenager (there’s a rare medical condition in which the foreskin grows in such a manner that it won’t retract) and he described it as being sheer hell. He said that the pain was barely dulled by the drugs they gave him. Based on that information, I’d say that it would be better to circumcize as an infant than an adult. I have heard of a proceedure in which a plastic ring is placed around the foreskin of the infant, turning the skin necrotic, thus eliminating the need for the knife. I don’t know how common this proceedure is, or if it’s better than the knife.