Posted on 02/18/2006 6:34:25 PM PST by dpa5923
CHICAGO (AFP) - A clash over of their son's circumcision has landed the parents of an eight-year-old Illinois boy in a US court where there is no apparent precedent.
A Cook County judge ordered the mother in the case not to have her son circumcised until the court can hear arguments from the child's father, who opposes the operation, and decide if it is in the boy's best interest.
Jews and Muslims circumcise their sons for religious reasons.
But this case instead involves shifting medical and cultural preferences, which have recently become a matter of debate in the United States.
The mother, 31, is a homemaker from Northbrook, Illinois. She says two doctors recommended the procedure for health reasons.
But her ex-husband, 49, a building manager in Arlington Heights, Illinois, has called the procedure an "unnecessary amputation" that could cause his son physical and emotional harm.
In the 1900s, surgical circumcision, in which the foreskin of the penis is removed usually before a newborn leaves the hospital, was the norm in the United States.
But the percentage of US babies being circumcised has plunged from an estimated 90 percent in 1970 to some 60 percent now, data show.
The American Academy of Pediatrics no longer recommends routine neonatal circumcision but says the decision should be left to the parents. That has added fuel to the fire where until recently there was little debate on the issue at all among the US Christian majority.
Some staunch opponents of the procedure see it as akin to female genital mutilation. They argue that the procedure is medically unnecessary and morally wrong. Still others have launched support groups for those who have been circumcised and would rather not have been; some have even pursued surgical options for restoration.
Legal experts however say that there are no published US opinions to serve as precedents in this case. As such it normally would be determined based on the best interests of the child.
When the divorced parents appeared Friday in Cook County Circuit Court, Judge Jordan Kaplan got the two sides to agree that the child would not be circumcised "until further order of (the) court."
He also also ordered them not to discuss the case with their child.
Tracy Rizzo, an attorney for the mother, said the father scared the child by telling him frightening stories about what might happen if he were circumcised.
The father's lawyers, John D'Arco and Alan Toback, have argued that the couple's divorce agreement provides that the father must be consulted before any non-emergency medical care.
Male circumcision is much more widespread in the United States, Canada, and the Middle East than in Asia, South America, Central America, and most of Europe.
The story is not really clear. But, as someone involved in the medical profession, I can tell you kids that get circumcized at an older age (not for religious reasons) are usually having some kind of problem- urinary or infectious or such.
If two doctors told her to have the kid done at eight, I would guess the kid has a plumbing problem. I would hope the judge will make a correct judgement here.
If the father is telling an 8 year old scary stories about his peepee getting cut off, my guess is he's a nut.
Of course it is a guess. How can it be anything but?
But it is inconceivable to me personally that this would be any kind of "optional" procedure yet nonetheless a medical "necessity". If it is an actual necessity, and I'd be very curious to hear what that might be, then the case would be closed and how could the father actually resist it?
But lemme see if I can scour up any other info on this. I'm curious now. BBS!
>>>Yes, this is why I said that people haven't bothered to read the article. "Wait till he's older to decide", but if he needs this MEDICALLY, as the article states, what will happen when he's older?
Another example of your inability to read the entire article, instead of just the one inconclusive sentence that you seem to be hung up on.>>>
That one sentence is a major FACT in the article. Just stating "let him decide when he's older" is obviously someone who did NOT read the article to see that it was medical, not just because she wanted it done.
Wrong. If and when it gets to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court relies entirely on the record developed in the trial court. Any testimony that either party wishes to introduce must be done at the trial level. As a general rule, with very limited exceptions, parties are not allowed to add to the factual record on appeal.
I could be wrong and one of them could be a pediatric surgeon or even both of them could be. But they would not be OB/GYNs
No, he wasn't. He was using the word "anesthetize" differently. He was referring to general anesthesia in which the child is completely unconscious, and yes that's a risk that shouldn't be undertaken for any but the most serious reasons. But a local anesthetic of the type I was referring to doesn't hurt the baby at all.
Judge orders delay of boy's circumcision after father objects
The boy's mother says two doctors recommended the procedure to prevent infections.
Oh yeah. That's some huge medical necessity alright.
Circumcision is a barbaric, contemptible ritual and this case merely underscores that for me.
No, that sentence is just a sentence, and is inconclusive at best. "She says" that doctors recommended it does NOT mean that it is medically necessary. You are just assuming that's what it means, and there is NO BASIS in the rest of the article for your assumption.
>>>His name can be withheld, etc., but he will find out and it will damage him and his relationship with his parents, whatever the outcome.>>>
It sounds like he already knows, it seems his father has attempted to terrorize him regarding the surgery. Just a shame all the way around I think.
The mother claims she has two doctors that state the procedure is needed for medical reasons. Read the article and post 181 for some good insight.
Apparently there is medical reasons for the need, according to the mother's doctors.
So in other words, you don't know. You just heard it somewhere.
So I'll go with what I learned in church thank you very much.
You need to get out of your church and read your Bible. Try Acts 15 for a start. Here's some other passages.
I Cor. 7:18-20 "Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him."
Paul had some strong words: Gal. 5:2-12 "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
"You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"
Again: Gal. 6:12-15 "Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation."
Titus 1:10-11 "For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain."
Ain't that the truth. :-D
Oh yeah. That's some huge medical necessity alright.
Another post that bears repeating. Thanks for looking up the link. Should have done that myself instead of arguing with fanatics who can't read.
>>>I'm sure if this gets to the supreme court, medical testimony will be required.
Wrong. If and when it gets to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court relies entirely on the record developed in the trial court. Any testimony that either party wishes to introduce must be done at the trial level. As a general rule, with very limited exceptions, parties are not allowed to add to the factual record on appeal.>>>
Hmm, I do believe you are correct on that issue. So it's a question of who if anyone has testified and what is the medical issue? Article is incomplete in that aspect.
Case closed, dad and son win.
Ping to post #188.
Yeah well, I'm figuring the dad wouldn't be opposed if the procedure were truly medically necessary.
BUMP for the un-cut!
In other words. It's nothing. There's no medical necessity at all, whatsoever. It's nothing but what could be said to any of the 2.5 billion uncircumcised men worldwide, who seem to deal with the 'heightened risk of infection' well enough.
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.