Baby circumcised against parents' wishes = lawsuit??

[stephbolt]

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.

Several of the brilliant lawyers here have explained that based on the legal definition of battery, what happened to this child could indeed be battery. If it falls under that definition, then they have every right to sue for it.

Because of the nature of this particular medical mistake, people's beliefs on circumcision are going to make their way into the discussion, simply because the amount of damages will have to be established for the lawsuit. People who are pro-circumcision are probably going to believe this child will suffer far fewer damages than someone who believes it's mutilation, and that will affect what amount (if any) they think the family is due for their suffering.

 

[lucyandroger]

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.

Here's the thing though...you can debate whether the parents should sue but the parents unquestionable have the right to sue. Even if the facts in this case didn't neatly fit into the definition of battery, the parents would still have the right to sue and have the judge/jury make that decision. What you think battery is or is not..well, is not at all relevant because the definition of battery has been settled law for oh, centuries...Juries don't make decisions about the law, they make determinations about the facts.

The articles that OP posted do not question whether the parents have a right to sue or question battery as a basis...those questions came from OP, who I assume has no legal training and is unfamiliar with the legal term battery.

As other lawyers in this thread have said, the only open question will be damages.

 

[Circe]

Several of the brilliant lawyers here have explained that based on the legal definition of battery, what happened to this child could indeed be battery. If it falls under that definition, then they have every right to sue for it.

Because of the nature of this particular medical mistake, people's beliefs on circumcision are going to make their way into the discussion, simply because the amount of damages will have to be established for the lawsuit. People who are pro-circumcision are probably going to believe this child will suffer far fewer damages than someone who believes it's mutilation, and that will affect what amount (if any) they think the family is due for their suffering.

Nicely said, Steph.

 

[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.

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.

Thank you for clarifying this for me, lucyandroger. I can understand the term as used in the civil suit. The situation, IMO, did not rise to the level of criminal battery.

 

[Anonymous]

I've read this whole thread. My thoughts are...

1. Yes, the parents have every right to be livid, and to sue.
2. No, not for millions.
3. Is it battery? Well, by legal definition it appears to be. They caused physical harm, and permanently changed the little boy against the parents' wishes. I work in the medical field and have been part of research groups that examine patient care/hospital liability. There were MANY opportunities to avoid this, and there's zero excuse. It's a checks and balances process. If consent procedures weren't enforced, and consequences for negligence, there would be a LOT more mistakes. From giving medications that people are allergic to to performing the wrong operation.
4. I would NOT consider the reversal an option. One of the main reasons for not performing circ is because it causes discomfort (being mild here, but personally I'm guessing it's very painful). The reversal sounds ridiculously painful and traumatic.
5. I agree that a child should NOT be altered unless medically necessary. This includes piercing ears. If they want to do it later, then fine! It's their choice. If it becomes a medical issue, then sure. Until then, no.

I should also add that this has been a very enlightening conversation. I have two girls, and hadn't really thought about it much because we knew they were girls long before the circ conversation would have come up. I shall have to ask my (circ'd) FI what he thinks.

 

[goCubsgo]

[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.

Well good Cehra. At least you recognize your hypocrisy. Because yes, piercing a tiny baby girl's ears for no other reason than 'to look cute' is definitely mutilation. Holes don't always close back, they get stretched, and it's highly presumptuous to assume every one born with two X chromosomes wants pierced ears. And hey, at least the parents who mutilate their sons aren't doing it for silly cosmetic purposes, right?

 

[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).

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

 

[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.

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?

 

[ChinaCat]

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".

 

[Laila619]

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 like this post, China.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I would sue in their shoes. Probably not for millions, but I would want there to be a compensation and acknowledgement of their mistake. It is not a horrid thing to happen, but it a pretty big goof up in my book.

Actually, after reading more of the posts, I would not sue as long as there was sufficient apology and also perhaps an offer of token compensation.

 

[LadyBlue]

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 like this post, China.

I agree with you China, money should not be ask for this mistake. What I would ask for is to remove the Dr. license. Someone that does not pay enough attention and perform a surgery that should not be done. Should not be allow to work in a hospital. This mistake was not life treating but who knows what could happen if he/she keeps performing in the hospital as before.

 

[ChinaCat]

The thing about suing is that it takes a LOT of money and a LOT of time. It will drag this thing out in their lives for much longer than they will ever anticipate. And it will cost them tons in legal fees.

For me, if I got an apology and perhaps the hospital changed their procedures to ensure against this ever happening again, that would be enough. I know it's easy for me to say, not being emotionally involved, but I hope to be forgiving and gracious if it was an honest mistake.

I was watching an episode of Boston Med this summer. It was a documentary/reality show where they followed different doctors in Boston for a certain amount of time. The one that I watched followed a family who had a newborn son who was born with a heart problem. Parents and doctors decided surgery was best. After the surgery, the baby could not be taken off life support and no one could figure out why. Finally, another doctor was looking at the scans and determined that the doctor that did the inital surgery accidentally connected a heart valve in the wrong place. The look on the doctor's face that made the mistake was heart-wrenching. The look on the parents face when he told them was devastating. Seeing that little baby hooked up to machines was almost more than I could bear. I almost couldn't finish watching because I wasn't sure I could take the outcome.

But. The doctor immediately owned up to his mistake and apologized profusely. You could just see the remorse and guilt on his face. This was not a man who callously made a mistake or who should have his license taken away. This was an exceptional doctor, who made a mistake. It happens.

They performed another surgery and the baby made it through and everything worked out.

The parents said that they were impressed that the doctor owned up to his mistake and took immediate responsibility, and then took immediate steps to fix the problem. They were obviously tramautized by watching their son go through a second unnecessary surgery, but they said they knew he was doing the best he could and they forgave him.

I hope to have that much compassion and forgiveness if I am in that situation. Most doctors are doing the best they can, but they are human and they do make mistakes.

 

[zoebartlett]

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

I agree with this dragonfly.

As do I. I think Dragonfly hit the nail on the head when she used the word "intentionally" in her previous post. To me, the whole thing hinges on intent. This was a mistake (i.e. malpractice), not a willful act of battery. Yes, it's awful that this happened and I definitely think the parents would be well within their rights to sue, but I don't think this rises to the level of a criminal act. A malpractice suit would absolutely be appropriate here, but battery? I don't think so.

I just saw this thread, so I'm only at the beginning of reading it, but I think this is where I stand too.

 

[Yimmers]

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".

Agree with you. Hence, my explanation earlier over what I'd be offering to settle if I were in the hospital shoes. Not a multi-million dollar case, IMO. Question is whether the insurance carrier will cave or fight it.

Even taking into account the arguments about a decrease in feeling, here's the reality. While experts may agree there is a decrease in feeling, as long as the procedure was done correctly and did not permanently eliminate the kid's ability to have any sort of pleasure (for lack of better words), it's going to be speculative and subjective to state how much money in damages he's entitled to given that he'll still be able to use it and still feel pleasure. That's why this isn't a multi million dollar case. And the family's "pain and suffering" for having a son that will not fit into family tradition, well, I would venture that most reasonable jurors would not award millions of dollars. More likely than not, at least one juror is going to have a "deal with it" attitude.

 

[Yimmers]

Battery - intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. If it is accidental, it is not a battery and it's negligence.
What's at issue is whether the circumcision is considered harmful or offensive. There are different opinions on that subject.

Remember, the battery is against the child, not the parents. If the parents are bringing a suit on behalf of their child, the causes of action may differ then the ones they will bring on behalf of themselves.

 

[Arkteia]

Actually there has been a study done that showed that if a doctor immediately sees a patient or contacts him/her and apologizes or shows compassion the risk of lawsuit is significantly less. Compassion lowers the risk.

 

[Bunny007]

Battery - intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. If it is accidental, it is not a battery and it's negligence.
What's at issue is whether the circumcision is considered harmful or offensive. There are different opinions on that subject.

Remember, the battery is against the child, not the parents. If the parents are bringing a suit on behalf of their child, the causes of action may differ then the ones they will bring on behalf of themselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the only relevant question (with regard to intent), is whether the contact was intentional; Whether it was intentionally harmful or offensive is not relevant. Someone already pointed this out and provided an example: Lack of intent would be relevant if, say, the surgeon slipped on a banana peel and inadvertently performed a circumcision in the process.

ETA: to fix quotes

 

[vespergirl]

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 totally agree.

 

[princesss]

Actually there has been a study done that showed that if a doctor immediately sees a patient or contacts him/her and apologizes or shows compassion the risk of lawsuit is significantly less. Compassion lowers the risk.

I definitely believe that. I think people want to feel like their medical care is personalized - mistakes like this make it seem more like an industry with QC issues and less like one person trying to heal another. If a doctor came and showed compassion and apologized and made it human again (especially if I could see the toll it took on them), I'd be much more likely to show compassion back, rather than feeling justified in seeking revenge from a faceless institution.

 

[Yimmers]

Battery - intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. If it is accidental, it is not a battery and it's negligence.
What's at issue is whether the circumcision is considered harmful or offensive. There are different opinions on that subject.

Remember, the battery is against the child, not the parents. If the parents are bringing a suit on behalf of their child, the causes of action may differ then the ones they will bring on behalf of themselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the only relevant question (with regard to intent), is whether the contact was intentional; Whether it was intentionally harmful or offensive is not relevant. Someone already pointed this out and provided an example: Lack of intent would be relevant if, say, the surgeon slipped on a banana peel and inadvertently performed a circumcision in the process.

ETA: to fix quotes

If the surgeon fell, it's negligence. As I said above, if the act is accidental, it's not battery.

In California, a surgical operation or treatment performed without consent is a battery. I don't know what it is in Florida.
If performing surgery without consent isn't seen as a battery, then you have to go through the elements of battery, which includes considering whether the contact was offensive. They have to 1) intend to cause the harmful/offensive contact, 2) that there was no consent, 3) the person was harmed/offended, and 4) a reasonable person in the situation must also find that such a contact was harmful or offensive.

 

[princesss]

Battery - intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. If it is accidental, it is not a battery and it's negligence.
What's at issue is whether the circumcision is considered harmful or offensive. There are different opinions on that subject.

Remember, the battery is against the child, not the parents. If the parents are bringing a suit on behalf of their child, the causes of action may differ then the ones they will bring on behalf of themselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the only relevant question (with regard to intent), is whether the contact was intentional; Whether it was intentionally harmful or offensive is not relevant. Someone already pointed this out and provided an example: Lack of intent would be relevant if, say, the surgeon slipped on a banana peel and inadvertently performed a circumcision in the process.

ETA: to fix quotes

If the surgeon fell, it's negligence. As I said above, if the act is accidental, it's not battery.

In California, a surgical operation or treatment performed without consent is a battery. I don't know what it is in Florida.
If performing surgery without consent isn't seen as a battery, then you have to go through the elements of battery, which includes considering whether the contact was offensive. They have to 1) intend to cause the harmful/offensive contact, 2) that there was no consent, 3) the person was harmed/offended, and 4) a reasonable person in the situation must also find that such a contact was harmful or offensive.

The bold part seems to be where there is some confusion - is it that they have to intend to cause the contact that is deemed harmful/offensive, or do they have to intend to cause harm/offend, and do it through contact? Because it seems like some people are saying "The doctor didn't intend to offend the family," but it seems (to me) that the crux of this is that he did intend to perform the surgery, and it's that surgery that is considered harmful/offensive, so he committed battery because he intentially had contact that then harmed/offended the family.

 

[Dancing Fire]

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.

if that were true then in China alone there must be at least 500 million males effected with phimosis.

 

[Bunny007]

Battery - intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. If it is accidental, it is not a battery and it's negligence.
What's at issue is whether the circumcision is considered harmful or offensive. There are different opinions on that subject.

Remember, the battery is against the child, not the parents. If the parents are bringing a suit on behalf of their child, the causes of action may differ then the ones they will bring on behalf of themselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the only relevant question (with regard to intent), is whether the contact was intentional; Whether it was intentionally harmful or offensive is not relevant. Someone already pointed this out and provided an example: Lack of intent would be relevant if, say, the surgeon slipped on a banana peel and inadvertently performed a circumcision in the process.

ETA: to fix quotes

If the surgeon fell, it's negligence. As I said above, if the act is accidental, it's not battery.

In California, a surgical operation or treatment performed without consent is a battery. I don't know what it is in Florida.
If performing surgery without consent isn't seen as a battery, then you have to go through the elements of battery, which includes considering whether the contact was offensive. They have to 1) intend to cause the harmful/offensive contact, 2) that there was no consent, 3) the person was harmed/offended, and 4) a reasonable person in the situation must also find that such a contact was harmful or offensive.

The bold part seems to be where there is some confusion - is it that they have to intend to cause the contact that is deemed harmful/offensive, or do they have to intend to cause harm/offend, and do it through contact? Because it seems like some people are saying "The doctor didn't intend to offend the family," but it seems (to me) that the crux of this is that he did intend to perform the surgery, and it's that surgery that is considered harmful/offensive, so he committed battery because he intentially had contact that then harmed/offended the family.

You're right, Princess, it is confusing. For civil battery, the emphasis is on the intent to perform the act/make contact. I found this explanation:

Criminal Battery: The difference between battery as a crime and battery as a civil tort is merely in the type of intent required. A criminal battery requires the presence of mens rea, or a criminal intent to do wrong, i.e., to cause a harmful or offensive contact.

Civil Battery (Tort): A battery is an intentional tort. The elements to establish the tort of battery are the same as for criminal battery, excepting that criminal intent need not be present. For a tortious battery to occur, the requisite intent is merely to touch or make contact without consent. It need not be an intention to do wrong, and the wrongdoer need not intend to cause the particular harm that occurs

 

[Imdanny]

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.

if that were true then in China alone there must be at least 500 million males effected with phimosis.

I think a lot of people accept male circumcision as a given and then go looking for reasons to justify it. Davi described, medically, exactly what is done. Actually, I think I've lost my patience with this thread. Some of you should read his post again (or read it for the first time and pay attention to what he is saying) and think about whether you would like that done to you.

As far as the legal stuff- please. A court will throw it out if there's no basis for it, otherwise, it's the justice system, our opinions about whether they should sue are not relevant. The court will decide if they can't sue for this or that or it's too much.

 

[Imdanny]

Circe, before I leave this this thread (and when I hit 'submit' I promise you I'm going to go read some other thread hopefully a pleasant one with nice things to look at), I just wanted to say thank you for your comments and kind words. I appreciate it.

 

[Circe]

Circe, before I leave this this thread (and when I hit 'submit' I promise you I'm going to go read some other thread hopefully a pleasant one with nice things to look at), I just wanted to say thank you for your comments and kind words. I appreciate it.

"My pleasure" is the wrong phrase, given the subject matter, but the sentiment holds true. I hope SMTB has a nice palate-cleanser waiting for you ....

 

[hlmr]

I am just reading through this thread and thought it worth sharing my son's story. I am against circumcision, but we ended up having to have our son circumcised.

We didn't realize it, but he was born with his foreskin partially fused to his penis, and when he was around two to three years old he would be in great pain whenever he had an erection. We saw several doctors and they advised that this was the only remedy for his situation. The surgery was absolutely BRUTAL for my poor guy, I cannot even begin to imagine how painful it was for him. His screams were so loud as he started to come out of the general anesthetic and before a local could be given, that I would have gladly have undergone any form of torture in exchange for taking his pain away.

If we'd had another son, unless I knew he would have the same issue, I would still have chosen not to circumcise.

 

[Cehrabehra]

[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.

Well good Cehra. At least you recognize your hypocrisy. Because yes, piercing a tiny baby girl's ears for no other reason than 'to look cute' is definitely mutilation. Holes don't always close back, they get stretched, and it's highly presumptuous to assume every one born with two X chromosomes wants pierced ears. And hey, at least the parents who mutilate their sons aren't doing it for silly cosmetic purposes, right?

Oh yes, I am aware that what I did is also mutilation. But I guess I comfort myself with the fact that there is a huge difference between piercing a hole in an earlobe and removing what equates as an adult to over TWENTY square inches of sexually sensitive skin from a sexual organ isn't even playing the same game. When you start leveling the field with discussion of a baby girl's inner labia and all of the cleanliness that goes with having fewer skin folds around a woman's vagina - then we're talk about the same game. Is it mutilation to remove a baby girl's labia? Doesn't destroy her vagina - doesn't prevent her from having sex or children, doesn't even prevent orgasm... so, I ask again - will you be trimming up the labia of your infant girls so that they don't have to do it later? Now we're talking apples and apples.

 

[Cehrabehra]

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