Baby circumcised against parents' wishes = lawsuit??

[ChloeTheGreat]

I'm Jewish. Circumcision is just a normal thing for baby boys. I've never thought so much about it.

But I don't have kids. And I've never had a doctor make any mistakes on me (that I know of!) so I don't know how I'd feel in this situation.

 

[Laila619]

Again, not to go off topic too much, but Kenny, male circ arguably has some health benefits...easier to keep clean, less likely to contract an STD, fewer UTIs, etc. I'm not sure if this was why it was first done though. Female circ--can't say the same (obviously)!

 

[davi_el_mejor]

Ggrrr, my post has disappeared into the ether. Anywho, thanks panda and lucyandroger, for the additional legal info! Based on the legal definition of battery, I amend my previous stance. I still think they're asking for an obscene amount of money, though, and it bothers me that their lawyer seems to be so focused on riling up people's emotional responses rather than focusing on the legality of the situation.

It's the emotional response that will almost certainly garner the amount they want. The legality of the case is open and shut. I figure this will end in 6 figures, but nowhere close to 7 figures. Hopefully through this, the doctor and hospital take the time to address how this happened and how to make sure it never happens again.

6 figures? You're generous. I've got my defense attorney cap on and my initial offer to settle if I were counsel for the hospital would be to do reversal surgery for free, and maybe offer a donation in their name to a charity of their choice. From a defense standpoint, I'd place this case at 5 figures. Not 6, and certainly not 7. Here's my reason why. I wouldn't want to allow this type of case to stand as a baseline for future settlements in other cases where they have mistakenly performed unwanted elective surgery where there is no real future physical harm to the person's physical well-being. I think they have no economic damages other than reversal surgery (assuming it exists), and I think proving non-economic damages is going to be tricky. Given the huge debate over circumcision in this very topic, I'd expect a jury to be just a divided. Therefore, I wouldn't bank on a jury awarding a lot of damages.

The surgery does exist. It consists of grafting skin from either the penis, scrotum, thigh or other skin harvesting locations. There are serious complications that come along with this surgery though. There are non-surgical reversal processes, but it takes weights attached to the shaft of the penis and months. I doubt either can be done on an infant. I suspect post-pubesense is the best time frame for any corrective action. Therefore the child would have to wait upwards of 20 years to reap the rewards of the lawsuit (i.e. restoration of his familial tradition and prepuce.)

Full restoration of sexual response from the removed foreskin can never be regained. Circumcission caught on in America in the early 1900's as a method to deter masturbation in adolescence as it was a sin or just unbecoming of a gentleman. Not only does the foreskin have millions of nerves, the glans does too. Having nothing to protect the glans from clothing etc. the glans becomes desensitized. Non-religious circumcission is really just a means to stifle sexual arousal.

Laila- I've never had an STD, UTI or an issue keeping it hygenic down there. It's all about learning how to maintain what you've got.

 

[Imdanny]

If I might be so bold, everything that was just said is true. Also, the foreskin has a functional purpose during sex, i.e. it functions during sexual intercourse as a sheath.

I'm not going to be more graphic than this, but yes, those of you who think this is nothing or next to nothing, all I can say is please reconsider.

 

[Bunny007]

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

Sh!t happens.

Wow.

Agreed.

 

[Cehrabehra]

I am HUGELY on the side of leaving babies INTACT unless there is a medical reason not to do so. I think that yes, being circ'd is small potatoes in the big scheme, but performing an unapproved surgery IS a big thing.

Getting a circumcision is akin to trimming the labia - would we do this to an infant girl? Whether those tissues are necessary for orgasm or reproduction makes them no less sexually sensitive as an adult. I think both are absolutely ridiculous and based solely on a sense of antiquated and misguided vanity.

 

[Cehrabehra]

If I might be so bold, everything that was just said is true. Also, the foreskin has a functional purpose during sex, i.e. it functions during sexual intercourse as a sheath.

I'm not going to be more graphic than this, but yes, those of you who think this is nothing or next to nothing, all I can say is please reconsider.

Sit with me?

 

[AGBF]

... there is a strong feeling against circumcision in some Eastern European cultures. It dates back to Nazi's time when examining a male penis was a quick way to decide whether he was a Jew (with all consequences of it). Yes, it was like this - troops enter a village, and order men to pull down their pants... So while I personally wanted my second son to be circumcised for hygienic reasons, both my husband and my father disagreed.

Some Americans are aware of this Nazi practice due to their familiarity with Arthur Miller's play, "Incident at Vichy". I am glad to say that American circumcision habits have made American men pretty much equal in the foreskin department. At least in my generation!

PS-This is not a pro-circumcision posting; it is an anti-Nazi posting! I don't care whether a man is circumcised or not. I care very much whether anyone can use this as a test of his ethnicity or religion!

Deb/AGBF

 

[Cehrabehra]

Again, not to go off topic too much, but Kenny, male circ arguably has some health benefits...easier to keep clean, less likely to contract an STD, fewer UTIs, etc. I'm not sure if this was why it was first done though. Female circ--can't say the same (obviously)!

Oh yes you can say the same thing!!! What some consider "female circ" removes the clitoris and that would be akin to removing the entire glans of the penis and calling it a circumcision. A traditional male circumcision removes the equivalent skin as the inner labia (which incidentally removing the skin that protrudes has become a common cosmetic surgery) which we would never consider doing to our baby girls... can you imagine thinking oh she has a large labia, let's remove some of it so she can look like all the other girls? And yes, that labia CAN get in the way of cleanliness, can harbor greater quantities of yeast and bacteria causing women to be more prone to infection and uti. So - yeah, if you're pro-circ then you should be pro-labia reduction. Same thing. I'm against both.

 

[artdecogirl]

I do not see anything wrong with sueing. We had our son circumcised because that is just what you did, I never thought about not doing it. Then I became a RN when my kids were older and saw my first circumcision and left the room and cried, I could not believe I did that to my child. I have witnessed many since then all horrifying. The foreskin can be restored by plastic surgery but not the sensitvity and who knows what pain and trauma done to a child at that age does to the phyche? We can't say long term, maybe his whole life he will have problems because he is not like his family, or he elects to have surgery as a adult? he should have compensation for any pain and suffering he may have in the future.

 

[packrat]

When I was pg w/Trapper we talked about it a lot. We decided what we would do. Dr. asked me at one of my visits if we'd decided. I told her. When I talked to the surgeon who would be doing the C-section, he asked what we decided. We told him. He wrote it down. When we got to the hospital, the nurse getting my iv/cath etc going, asked, I told her. After he was born, back up in the room, the nurse brought in forms, went over them w/us, sign here, dot this, cross this. Surgeon came up to do rounds and asked if we'd filled out paperwork about it, yes we had. Dr. came up to do rounds, asked if we'd filled out paperwork on it, yes we had. Dr. went over the procedure w/us, and said she would be back in just a minute to get him. She asked us AGAIN when she came back to take him for the circ.

Nobody ever walked in and took my baby w/out my consent, and nobody ever walked in and tried to take my baby w/out telling me what they were doing. In fact, they had come earlier in the day to go over the procedure and take him, but I was zonked out. They'd asked us both a million times, we'd signed release forms, saw pics of what goes on, had it described in detail, yes yes we agreed, yes, we wrote it down, yes. They knew we agreed. They didn't do it until I was awake and coherent and was asked AGAIN. And, even tho I work for the Dr, and she quite obviously knew me, she matched up my wrist band w/his ankle band, made sure the name on the bassinet matched. And even if he'd been in the nursery and I was in my room, they wouldn't have just taken him, even tho I'd signed consent and had gone over everything, and they KNEW we were having it done. They checked w/me first.

I understand mistakes happen but that's a lot of checking w/the parents to still make the mistake. Maybe not all hospitals check? How can one not have a baby boy and not ask about it or be asked about it? And it wouldn't just be the Dr. who did the circ who would be at fault-I'm sure there was someone else there, a nurse or someone. I can't believe nobody checked, and nobody told the parents what they were doing. Strange to me.

If I didn't want it done and went thru No, no, sign this no, sign that no, no Dr. no, and they still did it, yes I'd be torked and yes I would sue. Tho not for bazillions of dollars.

 

[somethingshiny]

Ditto packrat. (I was surprised to read through the entire thread before this scenario was mentioned)

With our son, we chose circumcision. We were asked by no less than 4 people and agreed, signed, had to actually tell THEM what circ was so that they knew WE knew what was going on. I was told on which day the circ would be performed, what method they would use and what care would be required. I don't understand how ALL of this was skipped. If it was skipped entirely, I think the entire hospital is at fault. Really, could every step just be ignored? Or are the parents leaving out a pertinent piece of info?

As far as a procedure being done without medical consent, sure it's wrong, I don't think anyone is saying it's right. However, a million dollar suit is greedy in my opinion. This boy will have no lifelong affliction, no trouble getting into sports, accepted into University, obtaining employment, or bearing children. If the term "battery" is the legal action that has taken place, fine, call it whatever you want. But, to sue for millions is simply milking an unfortunate event and is disgusting. Some people have had SERIOUS medical injury regarding consents. Those people are the ones that should sue, not this family.

 

[zhuzhu]

Regardless of one's personal feeling about circumcision. It is clear that medically, circumcision has protective effects on sexual health.

Br J Nurs. 2010 May 27-Jun 9;19(10):629-34.
Male circumcision, HIV and sexually transmitted infections: a review.
Larke N.

Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Medical Research Council Tropical
Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London.

Three randomized controlled trials in sub-Saharan Africa have shown that
circumcision reduces the risk of acquiring HIV infection in men by approximately
60%. In this paper, we review the evidence that male circumcision protects
against infection with HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in
men and their female partners. Data from the clinical trials indicate that
circumcision may be protective against genital ulcer disease, Herpes simplex type
2, Trichomonas vaginalis and human papillomavirus infection in men. No evidence
exists of a protective effect against Chlamydia trachomatis or Neisseria
gonorrhea. There is weak evidence that circumcision has a direct protective
effect on HIV infection in women, although there is likely to be an indirect
benefit, since HIV prevalence is likely to be lower in circumcised male partners.
Although there is little evidence from the trials of serious adverse events from
the procedure and of behavioural risk compensation among circumcised men,
essential operational research is being conducted to evaluate these key issues
outside the trial setting as circumcision services are expanded. Following the
publication of the clinical trial results in early 2007, the World Health
Organization/UNAIDS has advised that promotion of male circumcision should be
included as an additional HIV strategy for the prevention of heterosexually
acquired HIV infection in men in areas of high HIV prevalence. As circumcision
services are expanded in settings where resources are limited, non-physician
providers including nurses will play an important role in the provision of
services.

 

[danners84]

The drive to add battery (legally appropriate, yes) is likely the cap placed on malpractice suits. What I found online was a cap of $500,000 for practitioners and $750,000 for non-practitioners in Florida. If they want the big bucks, they have to find something else to sue for.

Also - up until just a few years ago, male circumcisions were routinely performed without anesthesia. These days, most docs (from what I've researched and seen) use EMLA cream to numb the foreskin, and a pacifier dipped in sugar water can keep the babes pretty calm. They still have to strap them down, which many say is the main reason for their crying/discomfort. This, of course, does not impact whether or not the surgery equates to mutilation, but at least it is being done in a more humane manner (again, from my research/experience). Parents need to ask their physicians about the specific procedures they use.

 

[Kaleigh]

Ditto on the checks and double checks, and this was 20 years ago.. I was on high alert going to a new hospital..


When I had Ash, after 48 hours of labor and a C section I was exhausted. So my last night, I asked to have them feel her, and let me sleep.. The door came open, and they handed me a baby... I was like I know I am tired, but this is NOT my baby!!!!!

This baby was like 10 pounds, had a full head of hair... They said but you are Mrs. Stienman.. I said NO .. I asked where is MY baby!!!!


I got up, thinking the worst.. Is she nursing from some other woman ? Sensitive for me, because of a medical condition I couldn't nurse..

I hobbled up to the nursery, there was my baby fast asleep...


After that, I thought very little of this hospital.. I had Rob at another hospital. I remember signing many papers for his circumcision..
My doc came in to get him... I was right across and heard him cry...

She brought him back after a bit and said he's got the perfect little pecker..

I didn't know what to say to that....Ummm thanks??

 

[Imdanny]

If I might be so bold, everything that was just said is true. Also, the foreskin has a functional purpose during sex, i.e. it functions during sexual intercourse as a sheath.

I'm not going to be more graphic than this, but yes, those of you who think this is nothing or next to nothing, all I can say is please reconsider.

Sit with me?

Yep, you and I agree on this one totally.

 

[goCubsgo]

As far as a procedure being done without medical consent, sure it's wrong, I don't think anyone is saying it's right. However, a million dollar suit is greedy in my opinion. This boy will have no lifelong affliction, no trouble getting into sports, accepted into University, obtaining employment, or bearing children. If the term "battery" is the legal action that has taken place, fine, call it whatever you want. But, to sue for millions is simply milking an unfortunate event and is disgusting. Some people have had SERIOUS medical injury regarding consents. Those people are the ones that should sue, not this family.

Exactly. It is greedy and disgusting. They have dollar signs in their eyes and are milking the situation. There are people who have REAL issues and medical problems as a result of malpractice. Talk to me if their baby had a forceps delivery and now he has cerebral palsy for life. Then I'd say sue for millions. This? Count your blessings that your baby is still healthy and fine, with no long-term effects.

 

[Dancing Fire]

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.

me too!! why torture a little baby??.. if he wants to be circumcised he can decide for himself when he grows up.

 

[Imdanny]

I do not see anything wrong with sueing. We had our son circumcised because that is just what you did, I never thought about not doing it. Then I became a RN when my kids were older and saw my first circumcision and left the room and cried, I could not believe I did that to my child. I have witnessed many since then all horrifying. The foreskin can be restored by plastic surgery but not the sensitvity and who knows what pain and trauma done to a child at that age does to the phyche? We can't say long term, maybe his whole life he will have problems because he is not like his family, or he elects to have surgery as a adult? he should have compensation for any pain and suffering he may have in the future.

It's totally barbaric in my opinion and many people consider it nothing or some kind of joke that anyone would get upset about it being done to a baby with the parents' consent. I used to believe being circumcised was superior, necessary, better looking, etc. It was just something you did, as you say. It wasn't until I grew up and learned about it that I realized how wrong I was to be so presumptuous. But, hey, mutilate a female, apparently this is a crime against humanity, mutilate a male, and no problem at all.

 

[Autumnovember]

As far as a procedure being done without medical consent, sure it's wrong, I don't think anyone is saying it's right. However, a million dollar suit is greedy in my opinion. This boy will have no lifelong affliction, no trouble getting into sports, accepted into University, obtaining employment, or bearing children. If the term "battery" is the legal action that has taken place, fine, call it whatever you want. But, to sue for millions is simply milking an unfortunate event and is disgusting. Some people have had SERIOUS medical injury regarding consents. Those people are the ones that should sue, not this family.

Exactly. It is greedy and disgusting. They have dollar signs in their eyes and are milking the situation. There are people who have REAL issues and medical problems as a result of malpractice. Talk to me if their baby had a forceps delivery and now he has cerebral palsy for life. Then I'd say sue for millions. This? Count your blessings that your baby is still healthy and fine, with no long-term effects.

I agree with everything you said Cub.

 

[megumic]

As far as a procedure being done without medical consent, sure it's wrong, I don't think anyone is saying it's right. However, a million dollar suit is greedy in my opinion. This boy will have no lifelong affliction, no trouble getting into sports, accepted into University, obtaining employment, or bearing children. If the term "battery" is the legal action that has taken place, fine, call it whatever you want. But, to sue for millions is simply milking an unfortunate event and is disgusting. Some people have had SERIOUS medical injury regarding consents. Those people are the ones that should sue, not this family.

Exactly. It is greedy and disgusting. They have dollar signs in their eyes and are milking the situation. There are people who have REAL issues and medical problems as a result of malpractice. Talk to me if their baby had a forceps delivery and now he has cerebral palsy for life. Then I'd say sue for millions. This? Count your blessings that your baby is still healthy and fine, with no long-term effects.

See, the difference is, this is not just malpractice, which is failure to follow generally accepted professional standards, but malpractice + battery, which is unconsented touching. So while I don't disagree that a circumcision vs. cerebral palsy are two entirely different cases in terms of long-term effects, a forceps delivery done wrong is just malpractice. So when you add the claims together, you reach millions.

 

[megumic]

I'd be furious and sue out the a$$ if this happened to my kid.

Generally, although I find a circumcised penis perfectly acceptable, I don't agree with the practices many hospitals use to perform the procedure. Thus, although we're not Jewish we hope to have our baby circumcised by a Mohel (a Jewish person trained in the practice of circumcision.) It is a far more humane procedure done in the comfort of your home without strapping your infant down to a table. (No intent to offend those whom have had their sons circumcised in hospitals...)

Because there is a way that I want my sons circumcised, it is enough for me to be pretty pissed off if a hospital went ahead and did this without my consent -- so much as to sue.

 

[Imdanny]

They required the CONSENT of the parents. They DIDN'T have it. Why do you think they require the consent, if it has no meaning? Why do they require it if doctors can proceed and decide for themselves to circumcise?

A misread consent form? An apology? Yeah, they're very sorry, very sorry they're being sued. They didn't read the form or they would have known. They didn't pay any attention to what the parents told staff. They just thought WTF, another day, another dollar.

Totally disgusting.

Those of you who are parents, do you at least think the parents had the right to consent OR NOT?

 

[Circe]

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.

Dragonfly, I don't mind - I honestly do believe these threads are helpful as forums for discussion, and these are difficult topics.

Growing up Jewish in America, all of my cultural conditioning told me that circumcision was no big thing. It's the norm in my culture, so what's the big deal? But when I learned about female genital mutilation, I started thinking about the implicit double standard. In a lot of ways, I loathe how discussions of FGM always circle back to circumcision: it's like we can't go 20 seconds without talking about how any given issue reflects on men. That said, though, the first time somebody asked me how one was okay and the other wasn't, I ... had to give pause.

Female genital mutilation is much, much more extreme in most cases: its express purpose is to diminish or altogether eradicate female sexuality. And its practioners claim it's for religious or hygienic reasons, too. For me, at the end of the day, neither of those reasons is good enough to change a child's body, and risk causing lifelong damage. (Note, I do not say cause lifelong damage in the case of male circumcision: sometimes functionality is perfect, and sometimes, it's ... not, if the doctor or the mohel slips.) My position is, why risk it? If it truly is for religious or cultural reasons, let's push that back to a rite of passage undertaken by the individual at the age of consent. If it's for hygienic reasons? I ... assume people are operating out of ignorance or neurosis, as, seriously, neither labia nor foreskin are particularly difficult to clean in an age of mass-produced soap.

I have no argument with people altering their own bodies: it's when people make irrevocable choices on behalf of others that I get riled up.

 

[Haven]

I'm Jewish and male circumcision is part of our culture. I've never realized that there are individuals who feel it is mutilation, and I've found this discussion to be very interesting.

As for my response to the family in this situation, I imagine that I would be livid if my newborn baby was subjected to ANY surgery that I did not want him to have. I'm not sure I would sue, but I'm not sure I wouldn't. All I do know is that it is a serious crime, in my opinion, to perform surgery on someone without consent.

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

 

[swingirl]

I would sue the pants off the hospital if they mutilated my son or daughter's body, whether it was a circumcision or the removal of another body part.

The reason why I consider circumcision mutilation is because a natural part of the body is being removed for no medical purpose. The foreskin isn't diseased or damaged. If you choose to do something as an expression of your culture the law allows it. But nevertheless, a healthy part of the body, that we have evolved to have, is being cut off.

 

[goCubsgo]

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. Suing for multiple millions just smacks of greed. It's not possible that a wrongful circumcision caused millions of dollars worth of pain, suffering, and medical bills. I'd sue to get the entire hospital bill reimbursed, or to have reversal surgery.

 

[davi_el_mejor]

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."

 

[Dancing Fire]

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

 

[goCubsgo]

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."

It doesn't matter. It does not matter what anyone's PERSONAL opinion on circumcision is. Their lawyer will have to PROVE that there is actually lasting harm to the baby, and that this lasting damage is worth multiple millions in compensation. Good luck with that.

It's fine to talk about our personal opinions on male (and female) circumcision, but it's totally irrelevant to the case.