Posted on 10/25/2006 12:46:25 AM PDT by TDunn
In a case that has been closely watched by anti-circumcision groups nationwide, a Cook County judge ruled Tuesday that the medical benefits of the procedure are not clear enough to compel a 9-year-old Northbrook boy to be circumcised against his will.
The boy's mother and her new husband had claimed the operation was necessary to prevent recurrent episodes of redness and discomfort. The boy's father sought a court order barring the circumcision, which he called an "unnecessary amputation."
In a written opinion handed down Tuesday, Circuit Court Judge Jordan Kaplan said, "The evidence was conflicting and inconclusive as to any past infections or irritations that may have been suffered by the child.
"Moreover," he continued, "this court also finds that the medical evidence as provided by the testimony of the expert witnesses ... is inconclusive as to the medical benefits or non-benefits of circumcision as it relates to the 9-year-old child."
Kaplan said the boy, as a minor, cannot make his own medical decisions but had indicated in a written statement that he does not want to be circumcised.
"The injury to the child as a result of an unnecessary circumcision would be irreversible," Kaplan wrote, adding that his order would remain in effect until the boy turns 18 and can decide for himself whether or not he wants to undergo the procedure.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
EXCELLENT! About time infant genital mutililation is stopped! If people want this procedure done, they can have it done themselves when they are able to consent to it!
I'm glad to see more movement toward the protection of the rights of people to determine their own medical care, even if minors. This operation does permanent damage, and if the boy is willing to endure his condition, them more power to him!
New term: "intactivist". An Anti-circer.
I'm not against circumcision, but I would think if the boy didn't want it done, it might be ...traumatizing?
Of course it would be. If you chose to get it done, they do it right after the baby is born. I can not imagine a 9 yr old wanting to face that. Maybe the mother & father or a DR need to explain to the boy how to keep himself clean. That could be why its red and sore.
The parents probably won't let the kid play dodge-ball either.
I don't have anything against circumcision, but it should be done while the kid's an infant. It seems a little odd to try and force a 9 year old to undergo such a procedure against his will.
Most 9 year olds, male or female, don't even want a splinter removed.
Especially from "down there"!
And you think a 9 year old boy would write, on his own, a "help me I'm being sliced and diced up" note on his own? Think again. The dad's an ardent anti-circ'er.
No, I never thought that. I always assumed his dad had a great and strong influence on his views, which is fine and right. He should.
If Dad feels this strongly, then teach the kid to wash better and he can choose differently when he's grown, or not. And that's why they have anesthesia, btw.
And I am not an "anti-circ" person either. I've never even seen an uncircumcized man. But there's just too much power play in there to make me comfortable either. Better cleaning habits, Gold Bond powder, the mom allying herself with her new honey and his values and against her ex, the father of her child. There are many issues that are probably in there.
And the father may want to exert some influence over his own child's upbringing, which he might feel is lessened by the other parents might be part of it too. Or maybe he's objecting just because he can. Who knows?
*oh wait, yes i have, one of my kids, the preemie, didn't get circed until he was several months old, during an operation for hernias. I'd forgotten
I wonder if the mother got a second opinion on her son's recurring malady.
pandoraou812 - Of course it would be. If you chose to get it done, they do it right after the baby is born.
It is also traumatic for a baby to have a very sensitive part of his penis cut off.
What does playing dodge-ball have to do with medically unnecessary genital surgery on a child?
It seems odd to me for a doctor to cut off a normal healthy part of a boy's penis (at any age) when there is no medical condition present that requires surgery for treatment. If the surgery is not medically necessary, why should it ever be done to a child?
If it is done at all, it should only be done when the boy is old enough to get a tattoo or to get his penis pierced. In other words it should only be done when the boy is an adult and if he gives his own informed consent for his body to be permanently modified.
Yup, me too, 4 sons, although I'm not asking anyone about it. Too late for them, they can do what they like with my grandchildren, as they are born.
Interesting.
The boys FATHER was able to intervene and succeed.
This is interesting.
Now imagine if this was a teenage girl who wanted a boob job or nose job and the father said no...
By this precident, mother or father has the right to veto any cosmetic surgery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.