USA: Doctors Can Get Away With Circumcising a Child by Mistake

 

I was lucky I found some time to write yet another post for this blog this month! Hopefully I'll keep finding time to write about this ongoing issue in my home country.

I was scrolling through Facebook this morning, and I ran into this:

This got me thinking about the possibility of parents suing doctors who went ahead and circumcised children without permission from parents.

The problem with suing doctors in the United States is that male infant circumcision is not seen as "harm" by the people there. 80% of men in the United States are circumcised from birth (this is separate from the rate of male infant circumcision, which has fallen to 56.4% as per the CDC), so most men are likely to be circumcised, and most women are likely to be married to circumcised men and/or mothers to circumcised male children. For this reason, and this reason alone, it is more than likely that sitting judges may let doctors who circumcise children "by mistake" off the hook.

In Muncie, Indiana, a doctor circumcised a child "by mistake." The sad part of this case is that the child's family traditionally does not circumcise.

One of the witnesses downplayed the unwanted procedure because "a penis could not be used to read books published in Braille for the sight-impared."

If that's the case, a clitoris can't be used for the same purpose either.

In this case, the jury decided to let the doctor off the hook without paying any damages.

But it's not necessarily the case that a doctor will be let off every time; every once in a while, justice shines through and knife-happy doctors are held accountable.

Take the case in Florida for example.

After a mother, Vera Delgado, had told doctors over and over that she did not want her child circumcised, the child was taken away and circumcised anyway while she was away from the NICU.

In this case, the mother sued for millions of dollars and she WON. 

There have been other cases in the past where doctors faced SOME kind of accountability. I copied and pasted the following comments from the same thread as above:

 

This isn't to say that circumcision cases simply can't be won, either.

In most cases where a circumcision goes beyond acceptable "harm" (destroying any healthy part of the body IS "harm"), parents are successful in suing doctors for millions. (Do a search on my blog for "litigation" and/or "lawsuits." I've posted plenty on here.)

But that's just it; in order for a circumcision to be considered "harmful" it has to go beyond what many doctors and nurses consider "harmless"; for those who perform circumcision, taking a child's foreskin, ripping it from its adhesion to the glans, crushing it in a clamp and then slicing it off, where 99.9% of human males are born with a foreskin, isn't considered "harm."

A circumcision botch where part or all of the glans (AKA "head of the penis"), "that" is "harm."

Are we seriously going to depend on subjective ideas of "harm?

Because whether we like it or not, female circumcision (AKA "FGM") isn't considered "harm" by people in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Egypt, Sudan and others.

Let's imagine a couple of hypothetical situations.

What if an expatriate had their daughter in one of the above countries, and the daughter was circumcised "by mistake" in a hospital there?

Or what if a doctor from one of those countries immigrates to the United States and circumcises a child "by mistake?"

Could his or her alibi be "Well, I don't consider it harm?"

That is now a thinkable possibility, given the fact that the ban on FGM in the United States has been deemed "unconstitutional" by a judge in a recent case.

What about "parental choice," which is quite possibly one of the greatest defenses of male infant circumcision in the US?

But most of all, what about a person's individual basic human rights to his own body?

From the same Facebook thread as above, a paralegal gave his account of a father who discovered his son was already circumcised after doctors kept asking him and his wife to sign the consent forms. The father demanded to see his child first, and that's how he found out.

 

 

I've heard it be commented before by some mothers, that doctors and nurses told them that they couldn't leave the hospital until the baby was circumcised. From the same thread:

I've also heard of cases where the parents put their foot down on not having their child circumcised, and the hospital billing them for it anyway. Someone commented on this same thread:

Circumcision is a moneymaker, so of course there financial incentive for doctors and nurses to push male infant circumcision on parents, even if it means lying to them about not having a choice in the matter.

As concerned American parents, we have got to stand up and demand to know what's going on here.

What is the AAP telling professionals across the country?

That it's OK to push male infant genital mutilation on parents in whatever which way possible?

There are CONSENT forms that need to be signed.

What's with this "You can't leave the hospital until the child is circumcised" BS?

Do American parents have to simply always be watching their children like a hawk?

It seems that's what we've got to do, because even if we refuse to sign the circumcision consent forms and demand doctors not mutilate our children, there's nothing we can do legally.

From the same thread:

For any parent interested in litigation against doctors, nurses or hospitals that circumcised their children against their consent and express wishes, there is one group of lawyers that I know you should contact, and that's Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, AKA "ARCLaw." Google them, or click on the link down under "External Links." (Or, click here.)

 
In a country where doctors can get away with mutilating your child's genitals, parents need to be warned and forearmed.

David Llewellyn: "The Circumcision Lawyer"
On the same thread above, an attorney can be seen commenting.

 That attorney is none other than David J. Llewellyn.

 
He is an unsung hero of the intactivist movement. One of his specialties is male infant circumcision. He is in fact the same David J. Llewellyn who sued Mogen out of business in a 11-million dollar lawsuit. A news article regarding this lawsuit can be read here. He has handled other million-dollar lawsuits as well. If there is anyone who knows about litigation involving male infant circumcision, it's this man. He has a Facebook page here, as well as his own website, at thecircumcisionlawyer.com.

Related Posts:
Muncie Circumcision Case: HIGHWAY ROBBERY

DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional

When Someone Says It's Not the Money...

External Links:
NBC Miami: Lawsuit Over Baby's Unwanted Circumcision 

Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision

David J Llewellyn: The Circumcision Lawyer

DETROIT: FGM Now Legal in US

I had been following the Detroit FGM court case (see related posts below), and it seems the case has finally reached it's conclusion:

According to The Detroit News, the most serious remaining charge against the doctor accused of FGM has been dropped, adding the final nail in the coffin for the federal ban on FGM of 2006.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised at the results.

I knew it would end like this.

Americans would rather sacrifice the rights of baby girls on the altar of "religious freedom" rather than bring that elephant in the room, the forced genital cutting of baby boys that happens 3,000 times a day, into question.

I'm not going to comment long like I usually do.

I'm just going to close with the statements and questions I usually ask:

In any other case, reaping profit from non-medical surgery, on healthy, non-consenting individuals already constitutes medical fraud.

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors be performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals?

Much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents?

How far are doctors expected to comply with "parental decisions?"

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

(Exact statistics on either male or male infant circumcision are unknown because those who perform them do not collect or report them, and governments do not require them to because they want to avoid being seen as "infringers of religious freedom.")

How is any of this conscionable given that male infant circumcision is non-medical, non-therapeutic?

Rough times lie ahead, but I am confident in that the truth cannot be hidden long.

"Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all." ~Sophocles

Perhaps this decision being handed down during the current coronavirus scare was strategic; people are distracted by the current pandemic.

But it doesn't matter.

 "Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told. During wartime it takes longer."--Sheila Steele

Related Posts:

DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional

Intactivists had been watching this case closely. We knew that what was riding on this case, what the possible outcomes, and what their implications were. We knew that whatever the outcome would be, it would be a landmark decision, and progress in the fight for basic human rights.

A year ago on June 2, 2017, I asked the question:

How far can "religious freedom" and "parental choice" justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors?

This was it; the one case that would finally address this question.

Either "religious freedom" and "parental choice" could be used to justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors, or it could not.

You cannot have it both ways.

Recapitulation

In March, 2017, one Dr. Jumana Nagarwala was charged with performing female genital cutting on two girls from Minnesota on February 3rd, 2017, at a Livonia clinic owned by one Dr. Fakhruddin Attar. She had been doing this for 12 years, and if found guilty, would have faced life in prison for violating the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996.

This was, unless, the doctor could prove that what she did wasn't "mutilation," but "benign religious procedure," which she and her defense lawyers were already trying to allege, or unless the federal ban could somehow be thwarted, since, under the ban, all cutting of female genitals, great or small, constitutes "mutilation."

The outcome of this case would have far-reaching implications, particularly in the case of another alleged "benign religious procedure."

Readers know what I'm talking about; male infant genital cutting.

Who was on the case, and why would it matter?
Who the doctor's defense lawyers were is important to note because it would appear that they had personal stake in the matter.

Famed constitutional law scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz and prominent Birmingham defense attorney Mayer Morganroth were hired by Dawat-e-Hadiyah, an international religious organization overseeing a small sect of Shia Muslim mosques around the world.

According to Morganroth, they were hired "to protect the people charged and to represent the religious organization."

Morganroth had represented numerous high-profile clients, including ex-Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young, auto executive John DeLorean and Jack Kevorkian.

Dershowitz is a retired Harvard Law School professor and lawyer who defended celebrity clients in some of the country's highest profile criminal cases, including O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson and British socialite Claus von Bulow.

Alan Dershowitz is Orthodox Jewish, and Morganroth is a Jewish surname.

This is important because male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment in Judaism, and it has been a highly contested practice for the past two millennia.

A negative outcome in a case against a physician performing non-medical genital cutting in children at the request of religious parents would mean the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

Of course, the defense of a client is the duty of any lawyer, but for these lawyers, the outcome would mean a bit more, and so they would see to it that it would result in a favorable one for them.

Religious Freedom or Basic Human Rights?
A year ago, I said that the outcome of this decision would be a landmark decision either way.

On the one hand, upholding the federal ban on FGM would mean a loss for this doctor, and it would mean not only that what she did was illegal, it also meant that the legality of Jewish circumcision would be brought into question.

It would mean that parents couldn't just do abusive things to their children and get away with it under the cloak of "religious freedom."

On the other hand, a landmark win would mean  a win for "religious freedom," and the legality of Jewish circumcision would remain unquestioned.

A year ago, I also warned that such an outcome might result in the Federal FGM Ban of 1996 being struck down, opening the door for other forms of FGM, and possibly other abusive practices, to be legally performed in the US.

Today, we read about the outcome of this case.

History Made
So what was it going to be?

The protection of "religious freedom?"

Or the protection of basic human rights?

For all people?

The powers have decided "religious freedom" must be protected at all costs.

On November 10 of this year (2018), the charges against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala were dismissed, precisely because the judged declared the federal ban against FGM "unconstitutional."

The judge deciding this was none other than US District Judge Bernard Friedman.

US District Judge Bernard Friedman

I must say, with a name like "Friedman," I'm really not surprised.

There is not a doubt in my mind that the unstated reasons the judge ruled this was precisely to protect male infant circumcision.

Intactivists would have wanted the federal ban on female genital mutilation to be struck down on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, but it was struck down on the grounds that genital mutilation is said to lie outside the scope of federally regulated interstate commerce instead. 

But to me, it really doesn't really matter; those who wanted to prevent a legal precedent that would invalidate "religious freedom" and thus place male infant circumcision under scrutiny from occurring, found a way to invalidate the Female Genital Mutilation Act, just as I predicted they would do a year ago.

I have always said, and continue to say this; either religious freedom and parental choice can be used to justified the forced cutting of genitals of children, or it cannot. It can't be had both ways.

The Ramifications of This Decision
I don't know about other intactivists, but I for one, welcome this decision.

Either decision would have been progress for our movement, because either decision would result in questioning "religious freedom" and "parental choice" sooner or later. However, I believe we couldn't have wished for a better outcome.

Had the judge upheld the federal FGM ban, it would have merely prolonged the grace period for male infant circumcision. The fact is that most, including activists against female genital mutilation, would laud the decision as the "correct" one, and life would have continued business as usual.

The fact is that striking the federal ban against FGM down is going to get people's attention; I don't think campaigners against FGM are going to be happy. There is going to be hell to pay.

Perhaps this judge inadvertently gave this conversation a push in the right direction.

The topic of the extent of "religious freedom" and "parental choice" is going to be a lightning rod for conversation.

In the past, activists against FGM and advocates of male infant circumcision alike were able to dismiss the topic "because they're not the same." Still others would hem and haw and hoped that the conversation would just go away.

Dismissing and ignoring is no longer a choice.

Sitting on the fence is no longer an option.

We intactivists have been saying for years that laws against FGM would not stand unless male infant circumcision were addressed. We were attacked by FGM activists for it. Now, exactly what I and others have predicted has come to pass.

This decision has propelled this topic from its usual position as the elephant in the room, to the forefront of conversation.

It can no longer be said that "male and female are not the same," because thanks to this legal precedent, male and female forced genital cutting are on the same tier.

The firewall between male and female forced genital cutting has been officially knocked down.

Anti-FGM groups will now have a decision to make; either recognize basic human rights for both boys and girls, or watch their movement crash and burn.

The conversation can no longer be dismissed on the grounds that the forced cutting of one sex is more or less "severe" than the other, because that's neither here nor there.

Either "religious freedom" and/or "parental choice" justifies the forced cutting of the genitals of healthy, non-consenting children or it does not.

Ultimately the question is this:

What is more important?

"Religious freedom and/or "parental choice?"

Or basic human rights?

You cannot have it both ways.

We are going to have to choose once and for all which it will be.

What's it going to be, FGM activists?

What's it going to be, world?

Knock-knock!

Reality is here.

Related Posts:

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

External Link:

Detroit Free Press: Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case

ICELAND: Parliament May Cave to Pressure to Call Off Circumcision Restrictions

Not too long ago, I posted on the latest bill in Iceland to restrict circumcision to consenting adults.

Circumcision advocates want to call it a "ban," but if putting an age limit on circumcision is a "ban," then alcohol is "banned" in the United States.

Oh no! What to do. Children can't buy beer and those who sell or buy it for them are defying the law!

There are also laws against sex with minors, which means there's a "ban" on sex too!

Or freedoms are being taken away! Oh noes!

Well anyway, according to Arutz Shevah, Israel National News, Iceland is "dropping" the ban.

I mean, measure.

Well, not quite yet, but it seems it's getting there.

According to the article linked above, parliament’s judicial committee recommended against its passage.

That doesn't exactly mean the measure has actually been "dropped" yet, parliament has yet to make a decision.

Also, a rabbi breaks Godwin's Law by invoking Hitler.

"The Nazis enacted such a law in 1933 and we know how it ended," Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the CER, said at a conference in Iceland organized by Protestant and Catholic European groups.

There are laws against female circumcision. How have those ended?

I think the world will be better off once male infant genital mutilation is banned, and the practice is relegated to the trash bin of history where it belongs.

But as I said in my last post, I don't think that day is today, and when that measure does fail, people should not be surprised. I think there are alternative solutions that would satisfy both parties, and those ought to be pursued instead.

Intactivists have a long road ahead of them.

Related Links:

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: All Eyes on Iceland

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: An Alternative to a Ban?

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: An Alternative to a Ban?

A landmark achievement that intactivists grope for is legislation that would give male minors equal protection under the law. That is, that forced male genital mutilation, particularly the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, be banned and made illegal. As of 1996, a federal ban on female genital mutilation prohibits any and every genital cut performed on girls for any reason, and there is no exempt for religions or cultures where female circumcision is considered an important tradition.

I've already mentioned it in a recent post, but the way things stand now, I think the world isn't ready for a ban on male infant circumcision. It was easy to enact legislation that bans female circumcision because it is not a custom in this country for girls to be circumcised. It's always easy to ban something that people already consider barbaric. Much groundwork has to be laid before this country is ready to ban the forced genital mutilation of male minors. It's not going to happen overnight. "Baby steps," as some put it.

Recently I was giving the issue of legality some thought, and I got to thinking about a hypothetical situation; what if, instead of a ban, circumcision were allowed to legally continue, but we enacted legislation that lowered the statutes of limitation, and gave men that grow up to resent the fact that they were circumcised the right take their circumcisers to court?

That's right, no ban. Instead, doctors could keep right on circumcising, and mohels and imams could go right on circumcising, with the acknowledgment that they could one day be legally taken to court by any of the boys they circumcise?

It is often said that most, if not all circumcised men, are happy and content with their lot, but I wonder, how much of this is true? How many would seek legal redress if they possibly could? How many circumcisers would stop if they knew they could face legal consequences one day?






There is a federal law against the forced genital cutting of females enacted in 1996, and the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution already guarantees equal protection for both girls AND boys under the law. Coupled with the fact that reaping profit from performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals already constitutes medical fraud, the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting boys should already be illegal and against the law.


A big part of the problem is that doctors and religious circumcisers don't have to face any consequences for their actions. If any of the boys they circumcised grow up to resent having been so, they could sleep at night knowing that short of huffing and puffing and gnashing their teeth, there is nothing they can do.

Well, what if instead of a direct ban, intactivists worked to make it legally possible for men of any age to take their circumisers to court? Legally lift statutes of limitation so that adult men can seek legal redress for the unnecessary mutilation inflicted on them? Make it legally required for each circumcision to be documented with the name of the circumciser and child, so that that person has legal access to this information as an adult, in case there is something he'd like to do about it?

The law could start requiring doctors to keep a record of an illness or medical condition that necessitates surgery, what methods of treatment were tried over time before circumcision was considered as a last resort, to ensure that only doctors who performed medically necessary procedures have a legit defense. (A legit medical reason is usually required for any other medical surgery performed on a non-consenting minor!!!) This would ensure that only medically necessary circumcisions were being performed.

The law would also required that this information be kept available to a child when he grows older, and keeping this information from a child would also mean legal repercussions for keeping information a grown person would be legally entitled to.

If current laws mean anything, the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting males should already be illegal, but current laws are toothless and there is nothing a grown man can do to challenge his doctor or circumciser in court.

I think a law like this would give doctors and other would-be circumcisers something to think about, and we'd see a definite drop in the number of circumcisions being performed annually in this country.

While a ban is a long ways off, I don't think a legislative solution is completely out of the question. I think intactivists ought to start considering smaller victories that could achieve the end result they want, which is to stop the forced genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting minors.

Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: All Eyes on Iceland

San Francisco Circumcision Ban on November Ballot

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

SAN FRANCISCO: Democracy Hits A Brick Wall

One Intactivist's Opinion: The SF Circ Ban Ought Not to Pass

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Catching Up - Important News I've Missed

I'd like to apologize to my readers; I haven't been as active on this blog as I'd like to be. Believe it or not, your blogger has a life outside of intactivism, as intactivism isn't making me rich, and I need to maintain a family. I wish there was some sort of way to be active in this movement, AND make the money that I need for me and my family to survive while doing it.

In the mean time, while I don't have the time to dedicate to long, well-thought-out blog posts, I do post my thoughts often on Twitter. If you're interested, please follow me @Joseph4GI.

Recent News
There have been a lot of important things in the news regarding circumcision. Every time I see something I tell myself "I'll write a blog post about it today," but hardly ever have the time to actually do it.

Today, what I will do is, I'm just going to go down a list of recent pieces of noteworthy news and briefly comment on them.

Iceland Ban
I already posted my thoughts on this in my last blog post, but in short, I don't think it's realistic, and like the San Francisco attempt, it is going to fail. We just aren't ready for a ban yet. We were ready for a ban on FGM because the West already pretty much agreed that they hated it, unlike with MGM, where it's become pretty much ingrained in American culture. They say that in big movements like these, laws are the very last things to change. There will be a ban when we get most of the world on-board the idea that forcibly cutting the genitals of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a violation of basic human rights.

Recently Published Studies
A number of studies that throw a monkey wrench in the pro-circumcision narrative have been published.

A study that showed circumcised men are at a higher risk for cancer-causing HPV was published last year in May, but it didn't really make the news until the latter part of the year. The usual claim by male infant circumcision advocates is that HPV prevalence is higher in intact men, supposedly making them a risk-factor for cervical cancer in women. If this study is correct, then the exact opposite is true.

In another study that was published relatively recently, findings showed that male circumcision greatly increases the risk of urinary tract problems. Again, this goes contrary to the pro-circumcision slogan that male circumcision is supposed to reduce problems with UTIs and the like. This wouldn't be the first study to show this, however; other studies have showed an increase in UTIs post-circumcisions. Studies in Israel here, here and here suggest that circumcision may actually be causing UTIs in infants.

Finally, a new and recent study suggests that that circumcision complications are much higher than circumcision advocates would like parents to believe. Typically, circumcision advocates minimize the number of complications due to circumcision, citing numbers as low as 2% if not lower. The AAP itself in 2012 actually said in their policy statement on circumcision that ''the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown." 

There are a few factors contributing to the lack of information on the true incidence of the adverse effects of circumcision. For one, there is a predisposition in American researchers in trying to find only "benefits" in circumcision, and aren't really interested in finding adverse effects; as circumcised males, fathers or mothers of circumcised children, and/or spouses of circumcised husbands, they're simply not interested in looking. Additionally, doctors who profit from the practice are probably not interested in publishing information that would likely lead to infant circumcision being banned, not to mention lawsuits. At least in the US, doctors and hospitals aren't required to publish information regarding adverse outcomes of male infant circumcision. Until the release of this information is made a requirement, we may never know the true incidence of complications of circumcision.


What this latest study goes on is a regional claims database. Because some adverse outcomes of circumcision go unreported, this can only be a conservative estimate.

"American Circumcision" Wins Yet ANOTHER Award
I did manage to post about the film "American Circumcision" winning the Best Documentary Film Award at the Lone Star Festival. Well sir, it looks like the film has managed to nab yet ANOTHER award, this time, the Silver Jury Prize at the Social Justice Film Festival.


Congratulations to the film maker Brendon Marotta for yet another award for his film.

Public Muslim Man Advocates for Choice
When I first saw this tweet, I just couldn't believe my eyes. I'm so glad that, Jews, as well as Muslims, are speaking out against forcibly cutting children, even under religious pretext.

"My community will see me as a traitor for what I'm saying" - @MaajidNawaz on male circumcision for religious reasons #ThePledge pic.twitter.com/LWv2eHMJpJ

— The Pledge (@ThePledge) March 1, 2018

I'm so glad to see people from circumcising faiths speaking out like this!

Well, that about wraps it up for this post.

Until the next time!

CONNECTICUT: Baby's Glans Partially Amputated - Doctor Cleared of Negligence

Particularly in the United States, suing for circumcision malpractice is an uphill battle.

About 80% of US males are circumcised from birth, and though male infant circumcision rates have fallen in the past years, to about about 56% if CDC numbers are to be believed, the practice is still quite prevalent, at about 1.3 million boys circumcised a year.

This means that male infant circumcision is viewed favorably by a considerable number of the population.

The country is exposed to a constant drizzle of news articles and "studies" saying that circumcising male infants is "beneficial," and that adverse effects of it are "negligible."

So we, as a nation, are predisposed to believe that circumcision is a benign, "harmless" procedure and that nothing could ever go wrong.

It's no surprise, then, that any adverse results that do present themselves are minimized, and those who are at fault for negligence or malpractice are often absolved, boys and men who have to live with the consequences of a circumcision gone wrong be damned.

Connecticut Mogen Clamp Case
A circumcision malpractice case is currently stirring up controversy on Facebook, where at least one user who posted the case on his timeline has been punished with a 30 day ban.

The case in question is Mahoney v. Smith, a case in Connecticut where parents sued Dr. Lori Storch Smith over malpractice for a circumcision performed at Norwalk Hospital on December 29, 2010.

During this procedure, Dr. Smith used a Mogen Clamp, and then realized that she had cut off approximately 30% of the glans of the baby's penis. The baby was subsequently transported to Yale-New Haven Hospital where he had the amputated portion reattached.

The trial began on April 15, 2015 – and the jury cleared the defendant. The verdict was appealed, and the Appellate Court ruled against the plaintiffs on July 13, 2017.

Long story short, the jury was presented with evidence, and despite the fact that the child's circumcision resulted in 30% of his glans being amputated, decided that the Bay Street Pediatrics doctor should be cleared of medical negligence.

The Devil in the Details
The parents tried appealing the court decision but were unsuccessful.

They tried to argue that  a video shown in court was unfairly allowed by the trial judge, which may have swayed or confused the jurors.

The video shows a Mogen procedure being completed successfully without any complications.

Furthermore, details that were never an issue or point of contention were addressed, namely that anesthesia and the right surgical tools to control bleeding were used. (The end result was 30% of the child's glans being severed, regardless of how much anesthesia or which tools were used.)

According to the appellate court, rather than confuse, the video likely illustrated for the jury the testimony given by the Mahoneys’ own expert witness, Dr. David Weiss, describing a circumcision using a Mogen clamp, an allegation that can't be true, given the fact that the child's circumcision was a botched surgery, not one completed successfully as shown in the video.

The problem lies in the technicality that the Mahoneys' counsel identified the video as acceptable evidence for presentation prior to the trial.

The Mahoneys are apparently at fault for not having requested to see the video before it as presented and rejected it as evidence.

According to Law360, "The plaintiffs could have asked to watch the video prior to its introduction at trial, but did not do so; nor did they file a motion in limine seeking to preclude its admission into evidence, move for a continuance after it was marked for identification or recall Dr. Weiss to serve as a rebuttal witness concerning the video," the panel wrote in a nine-page opinion.

The Mahoneys tried to argue that use of the video violated the court rules regarding disclosure of expert testimony, but the panel rejected this argument saying the plaintiffs did not specifically make those claims in their motions to set aside the verdict for a new trial.

The jury, while deliberating, wanted to see the video again. However, this request was denied because the video itself was not part of the evidence, because it was not produced as evidence and was not a recording of the actual botched surgery. (Begging the question of why it was allowed to be shown in the first place.)

The jury then requested to hear again the declaration of the expert witness, the one that presented the video. They were told they could get a  transcript but that would take about 2 days to just listen to the transcript again.

It must be asked, what was the purpose of showing a video where the procedure went how it was supposed to in the first place?

How was it significant enough to show it to the jury the first time, but suddenly not significant enough to request to see it a second?

So if your blogger read the appellation correctly, the court discouraged the jury from re-hearing this testimony. In my opinion, this is necessarily the result of judges who are already circumcised themselves, and/or have circumcised children, working with a jury whose members are likely to be circumcised/parents of circumcised children themselves, both of whom already want believe circumcision is benign and could never go wrong, and want to see this case dismissed, so that they can go back to believing circumcision is "harmless" and "good."

In the end, a child's glans was partially amputated, and the jury believed the doctor wasn't negligent and performed the circumcision "properly" because that's what they saw in a video.

And it's the parents' fault for not requesting to see the video before it was presented.

The details can be read here.

It Doesn't Matter

 A Mogen clamp; the circumcision clamp used in this case

We can go on and on quibbling about the details in this case, how the judges, jury, lawyers handled it etc., but that is beating around the bush.

The fact is a mogen clamp was used in 2010, when it was already clear that there is potential for injury even in the best case.

I have already written numerous posts on this before, but the Mogen Clamp is notorious for glans amputations.

Common Mogen Problem: The circumciser is blind to the

conditionof the child's glans. Some or all of the glans is pulled up

along with the foreskin, resulting in partial or full glans amputations.

Back in August, 2000, the FDA issued a warning regarding the potential for injury employing the use of the Mogen and Gomco clamps, after 105 reports of injuries between July 1996 and January 2000.

On July of 2010, six months before this botched procedure, an Atlanta Lawyer won a $10.8 million lawsuit for the family of a baby whose glans was amputated during a Mogen clamp circumcision.

Mogen Circumcision Instruments of New York was already $7 million in default on another lawsuit, and was thus forced out of business.

Another baby, born on March of 2010 (9 months before this botched circumcision) also had the glans of his penis removed during a Mogen clamp circumcision. His parents filed a lawsuit on April of 2015.

The FDA warning was later archived, but remained accessible on their website for some time.

(Incidentally, your blogger tried accessing that warning today, but it is nowhere to be seen. The failed search even offers to search the FDA archive, but this is also a dead end. Fortunately, a copy of the warning can be found archived on the CIRP webpage.)

AAP Silent
In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued their policy statement on circumcision, in which they make the self-contradictory statement that “the benefits outweigh the risks”, but that “the benefits are not enough to recommend circumcision.”

Dr. Andrew Freedman from the task force said that “there are modest benefits and modest risks."

In their statement, the AAP tries to minimize the risks and complications of male infant circumcision, including the most catastrophic risks, which include partial or full ablation of the penis, hemorrhage and even death. Reported incidences of adverse effects of circumcision are dismissed as "case reports" because of the lack of statistics.

The AAP admits in their 2012 statement that "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown."

The AAP policy statement on circumcision is turning 5 years next month.

Will they reaffirm it?

Will they present a new one?

Are they even trying to document the actual number of catastrophic injuries?

The fact is, physicians and hospitals are not required to report adverse outcomes of circumcision procedures.

It's also a fact that the AAP is first and foremost a trade union, whose primary interest is the welfare of their members, a great deal of who profit from the business of male infant circumcision.

Something tells me they're not interested in conducting investigations that could prove devastating to their members.

The bottom line is that male infant circumcision is elective, cosmetic non medical surgery whose risks and complications are no longer deniable.

Are parents being warned of these risks?

But more importantly, can doctors get away with reaping profit performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals?

Were it the amputation or extraction of any other part of the body, the medical fraud would be undeniable.

Why is it that doctors who perform male infant circumcision get a free pass?

Related News Articles:

Schmidt Law - Mogen Clamp Circumcision Lawsuit Filed for Penis Amputation

AJC - Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision

WCPO Cincinnati - Cincinnati protesters demand end to circumcisions at Good Samaritan Hospital

Journal of Perinatology - Pain During Mogen or PlastiBell Circumcision

Related Posts:
Mogen Circumcision Clamp Manufacturers Face Civil Lawsuit

The Ghost of Mogen

CINCINNATI: Intactivists Protest Circumcision "Experiment" at Good Samaritan Hospital

AFRICA: Botwsana to Implement Controversial Infant Circumcision Devices

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

If "religious freedom" and "parental choice" can be used as alibis to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting boys, can they be used to justify it in girls?

The world is about to find out.

There exists an inconsistent hypocrisy in this country when it comes to the forced genital cutting of minors.

We have a two-track system that says that forcibly cutting off the foreskin of a healthy, non-consenting male child is defensible under so-called "religious freedom," as well as so-called "parental choice," but it is "mutilation" to cut the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting female child in any way shape or form.

There is no exemption for parents who wish to have their daughters' genitals cut for "cultural" or "religious reasons," though with male circumcision, only "parental choice" suffices and a doctor can perform a circumcision in a male child with for no further reason than that a parent wanted it done.

In South-East Asian countries, girls are circumcised in infancy.

In different countries around the world, including regions of Africa and South-East Asia, girls are often circumcised in infancy in pretty much the same way as boys are in the US.

When media outlets present female genital cutting, it is often generalized that all of it takes place in the bush, performed by amateur tribal shamans with crude utensils such as rusty blades, tin can remnants and glass shards. (Which is funny, because male circumcision is often performed in these exact same settings in the exact same places where female circumcision is performed in this way.)

When you say "female circumcision," the default for most Americans is to correct you and say "no, it's mutilation," citing the above, and citing infibulation (AKA "pharaonic circumcision"), where the protruding part of the clitoris is excised, the outer and inner labia excised and the remnants sewn shut to leave but a small hole for menstruation.

While infibulation exists, this is actually the rarest form of FGM, constituting only about 15% of all female genital cutting.

Most FGM is not as severe.

"Severity" is not the issue here.

Yet there seems to be this unspoken rule that "the least severe of the practices is justifiable."

Most people in the West don't seem to be aware that infant girls can be circumcised in pretty much the same way as infant boys are, in the setting of a hospital, performed by a medical professional using pristine utensils, and excising only external, vestigial pieces of flesh, though in the Western mind, there is no acceptable amount of flesh that can be removed in a girl.

While the entire foreskin can be removed in a male for "religious" or "cultural" purposes in males, the removal of any amount of flesh in a female constitutes "mutilation" as is simply unacceptable.

Pictured here is the amount of flesh that was removed in a circumcision in South-East Asia.

The original blogger, the mother, claims it was the clitoris, which is barely visible on the blades.

 Pictured here is the freshly severed foreskin of a newborn infant in the US.

It is often claimed by female circumcision advocates that male infant circumcision as it is commonly performed in the United States is actually more severe than female circumcision is it is commonly performed in South-East Asian countries, and as readers can see for themselves, they wouldn't be exaggerating.

It is often claimed that the reason female circumcision is "more severe" in girls is supposedly because female circumcision removes the clitoris, and that without the clitoris sexual enjoyment and even orgasm aren't possible.

What is removed in female circumcision, if at all (not all FGM removes the clitoris), is the *tip* of the clitoris. Complete removal of the clitoris is actually impossible.

For this reason, even women who have undergone the most severe form of FGM can still enjoy sex and even experience orgasm, as documented by Johnsdotter and Catania.

FGM is not all the same. The WHO recognizes for different types, not all of which remove any part of the clitoris.

 FGM is not all one and the same.

For better or for worse, female infant circumcision is not seen as "mutilation" in the countries and cultures where it is performed.

In fact, it is often considered a religious requirement, known as "sunat" in South-East Asia.

Female circumcision is seen as a normal "non-issue" by South-East Asian parents, just as male circumcision is seen as a normal "non-issue" by American parents.

 If you ignore the fact that this is a South-East Asian parent talking about

circumcising her daughter, she would sound like any American parent on

a parenting forum like BabyCenter or BabyGaga.

We intactivists have always asked, if "religious freedom" and "parental choice" can be used to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting male children, why can't it be used to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting female children?

The question is often circumvented with assertions that "they are not the same," because "one is more severe than the other," not to mention "the potential medical benefits of which there are zero in female circumcision."

These may or may not be true, but true or not, they would be irrelevant conclusions to the question posed.

Either "religious freedom" or "parental choice" can be used to justify the cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors, or they cannot.

Actually, as shown here, female circumcision can be more severe than male circumcision, and removing the labia can prevent the accumulation of smegma in females, as removing the foreskin can in males.

The fact that we do not circumcise females is testament to the fact that surgery is not necessary for hygiene.

And here, before I go on any further, I'd like to point out how in the face of scrutiny, "religious freedom" and "parental choice" have to be abandoned as alibis.

These arguments are so weak and frail that after their demise, male infant circumcision advocates have to look elsewhere for recourse, in this case being "disease prevention," as if their concern for public health were genuine.

As with male infant circumcision advocates, female infant circumcision advocates are ready, complete with published "research" showing how female circumcision may be able to prevent this or that disease.

Again, because "religious freedom" and "parental choice" fail.

It's Here
Anti-FGM advocates have up until today sidelined and ignored anyone who dare ask the above question, hoping we go away, but I think that by now, they're realizing that they can only do that so much.

Today, that question is staring them directly in the face, and they have to make a decision.

America has to make a decision.

Very soon, doctors, lawyers, ethicists, members on committee boards of respected medical organizations, our entire justice system will be faced with the question; how far can "religious freedom" and "parental choice" justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors?

How far can something be justified before it constitutes "abuse?"

Female genital cutting in any way shape or form has been illegal in the US since a federal ban against it was instituted in 1996.

No such ban exists for male genital cutting.

This insconsistency, this sexist two-track system is finally going to be challenged in a court of law.

The State of Affairs
The situation is as follows; a woman is facing charges for FGM performed in Detroit.

Not too long before that, an Ethiopian Man had been deported after serving a sentence for having her daughter circumcised.

According to Detroit News, Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville is accused of mutilating the genitalia of two girls from Minnesota on Feb. 3 at a Livonia clinic owned by Dr. Fakhruddin Attar.

The Farmington Hills man has been indicted along with his wife, Farida Attar, who is accused of helping arrange the procedure and being in the examination room during the procedure.

Defense lawyers are saying the girls underwent a benign religious procedure, and that the government is overreaching. (E.g., it's not genital mutilation because it was religious.)

Nagarwala’s lawyer Shannon Smith said the doctor merely removed mucous membrane from the girls’ genitalia, placed the material on gauze pads and gave it to their families for burial. (There is a federal ban against any form of FGM regardless.)

All three are members of the Dawoodi Bohra community, a religious and cultural community based in India where FGM is practiced.

They are being held without bond pending a trial in federal court in Detroit on October 10th this year.

Fakhruddin Attar, 52, and Nagarwala, 44, face up to life in prison if convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity.

Farida Attar, 50, faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of conspiring to obstruct the investigation.

The trio is accused of committing female genital mutilation, trying to cover up the crime and conspiring to cut girls as part of a procedure practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra.

Top Laywers on the Case
Famed constitutional law scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz and prominent Birmingham defense attorney Mayer Morganroth were hired about three weeks ago by the Dawat-e-Hadiyah, an international religious organization overseeing a small sect of Shia Muslim mosques around the world.

According to Morganroth, they were hired "to protect the people charged and to represent the religious organization."

Morganroth has represented numerous high-profile clients, including ex-Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young, auto executive John DeLorean and Jack Kevorkian.

Dershowitz is a retired Harvard Law School professor and lawyer who defended celebrity clients in some of the country's highest profile criminal cases. His client list includes O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson and British socialite Claus von Bulow.

Conflicts of Interest
It looks like Alan Dershowitz is Orthodox Jewish. I couldn't find much on Morganroth, except that Morganroth is a Jewish surname.

Why is this important?

Male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment in Judaism.

They have personal stake in this case, because if the federal government wins this landmark case against a physician performing genital cutting on children at the request of religious parents, then the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

A Delicate Dance
So much hangs in the balance in this case.

The defense lawyers have a delicate dance to perform; the dance around the candle that FGM activists and male infant circumcision advocates have been struggling to perform for decades, only now, it's being performed in federal court.

On the one hand, a landmark win is a win for "religious freedom," and the legality of Jewish circumcision will remain unquestioned.

It also means, however, that this may result in the Federal FGM Ban of 1996 to be lifted, opening the door for other forms of FGM, and possibly other abusive practices, to be legally performed in the US.
 

For the Holy Day of Ashura, parents cut the tops of childrens' heads.
Harmless, really...

In some cultures, children marry early.
It's religiously sanctioned of course...

 In some cultures, children's faces are scarified.

Some belief the scars provide religious protection. Does that count?

 What if I want to tattoo my faith on my child?

What if, instead of taking my child to the doctor, I insist on praying for him?

Because I believe only god can and should heal my child from diseases?

 Where does it end?
What if I invent a new religion that says that all children

must have their ears modified to look like Princess Zelda?

On the other hand, a landmark loss means the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

This also means, however, that parents can't just do abusive things to their children and get away with it under "religious freedom."

So these lawyers have to decide what's more important: protecting the most basic human rights of healthy, non-consenting minors, or sacrificing them on the altar of "religious freedom."

You can't have it both ways.

Choose wisely.

While it seems like it's a lose-lose for them, I can't help but seeing it as a win-win for basic human rights.

As a human rights activist, I want the judge uphold the federal ban on FGM to rule in favor of basic human rights, and to condemn the actions of the people involved.

On the other, a rule in favor of "religious freedom" is a tacit admission that genital cutting is the same issue, male or female.

Actually, male circumcision and female circumcision will be legally recognized as being parallel, and neither FGM activists nor circumcision advocates will be able to deny it.

The firewall between the forced genital cutting of males and females will have been officially broken down.

Normalizing and even legalizing FGM will force the public to take a closer look at the issue, and to recognize that male and female circumcision are both one and the same, for they violate the exact same principles and are defended on the exact same grounds.

In either case, I see nothing but progress in the fight for basic human rights.

Related Posts:

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay