Posted on 10/26/2006 8:41:34 AM PDT by Froufrou
A judge in a case closely watched by those who oppose circumcision sided Tuesday with a divorced man who did not want his 9-year-old son to undergo the procedure.
Circuit Judge Jordan Kaplan said that circumcision is "an extraordinary medical procedure" for a 9-year-old and that the boy can decide for himself when he turns 18.
The boy's father sued to block the operation in a dispute with his ex-wife. The couple's 2003 divorce decree gave the father the right to be consulted before the boy underwent any "extraordinary" non-emergency procedure.
The father said he believed surgical removal of the boy's foreskin could cause long-term physical and psychological harm. The child's mother wanted the procedure to prevent recurring infections. She testified that the boy had suffered five bouts of painful inflammation and had begged her to help him.
Newborns in several mainstream religions are routinely circumcised as part of their faith, but religious beliefs did not figure in the ruling.
Alan Toback, the father's attorney, said the man is extremely happy with the judge's decision. A telephone call to the mother's attorney was not immediately returned.
In a 1999 policy statement that was reaffirmed this year, the American Academy of Pediatrics said there are "potential medical benefits" to circumcision, including a reduction in risk of urinary tract infections. But the academy said there is not enough evidence to recommend routine circumcision of newborns.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
In this particular instance, I think it's just an example of a control-freak ex-husband wanting to exert his control over his family.
What about the recent studies linking reduced rate of HIV infection in those that are circumcized?
I agree that proper hygiene will deal with most of these situations, but repeated infection usually signals a larger problem. It appears the child is prone to infection and his doctor agrees circumcision is medically necessary. I fail to understand why a father seek to overrule medical advice, without seeking any of his own.
My brother in law (my sister married a Methodist) went through a very similar process with a father who was uncircumcised and felt strongly that his son's issue was one of cleanliness. When he was in the military in his mid-twenties he underwent a circumcision. It was extremely painful, took a week to heal, but he has had no recurrance of infection since. All of their sons were circumcised at birth.
This is not difficult. The mother is right. The father is a fool. And that's the trouble with democracies -- fools are alloted equal time to have their views heard. And those, who by experience or education, know better, have to listen to them.
I realize kids shouldn't always get their way, but if the boy has suffered infection and discomfort I think he should be heard and allowed to have relief. I've never heard any information that would cause me to think it's harmful to have a circumcision. I would think he'd rather be comfortable than [imagine alternative.]
It has been known for decades in all reasonable circles that circumcision is a wise choice, and, for some time, it was done as a matter of course. Those who hold with a different view need to be questioned carefully. Chances are they are, not only fools, but slaves to some bizarre religious conviction.
If it worked in that case, good then.
About the study on HIV transmission and AIDS, my earlier cited example of the rates of transmission being nearly the same in Europe and the US, kind of debunks it. And that particular study had a lot of critics too.
Besides, trying to prevent HIV transmission by circumcision is a lot more ineffective than being faithful to one partner, and using a barrier method of protection.
This argument of getting sons to have a circumcision, just for the sake of "ensuring their chances of getting HIV reduced" is the same as getting daughters to take that pappiloma virus vacccination, so that she may not contract the disease, when she goes about whoring her body in adulthood. In fact, the latter makes for a stronger case.
And all this without keeping cultural aspects in mind.
No question, the best prevention is good behaviour.
When morality or even education is not in the equation (as it so often is), then good medicine needs to step in.
However, to get back on point, no one is really asking what's in the best interest of the child, and there I believe the judge has erred and put the boy at risk.
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.