Mothering › Baby Articles › More on the Newborn who was Circumcised Against his Parents’ Will

More on the Newborn who was Circumcised Against his Parents’ Will


There are over 5,659 comments on an article in today’s Huffington Post about San Francisco’s proposed ban on infant circumcision, which could appear on the ballot next November.


I recently spoke at length with Spencer Aronfeld, the Coral Gables-based Florida lawyer representing Vera Delgado to seek retribution from South Miami Hospital, owned by Baptist Health.


Three months ago, in August 2010, South Miami Hospital circumcised her infant son, Mario Viera, without parental consent.


No men in Delgado’s family are circumcised. Mario’s father isn’t circumcised. Delgado had no intention of circumcising their son.


But when she and her partner went home from the hospital to shower and change her clothes after eight days of being by their son’s side in the NICU (he was there for some complications suffered at birth), a doctor circumcised him while she was gone.


“In that window of an hour and a half they went into the NICU and performed a circumcision,” Aronfeld told me.


Now the hospital is trying to cover its tracks. According to Aronfeld, a note appeared in Delgado’s record that says the doctor had a lengthy conversation with the parents about circumcision, and they said yes.


But, Aronfeld says, the parents were not even in the hospital at the time that the hospital says the conversation between his client and the doctor occurred.


The hospital has been unable to produce a signed consent form.


“I allege it is a battery,” says Aronfeld, who has specialized in patients’ rights law for twenty years. “An unauthorized touching that causes harm, like if someone punches you in the face or stabs you with a knife.”


Aronfeld is Jewish. He chose to have his own son circumcised in a traditional Jewish ceremony called a “bris” or a “brit milah,” and he himself is in favor of circumcision for religious reasons.


He says the case is not so much about circumcision but about parental consent.


“Whether it is done routinely, it was not what this family wanted,” Aronfeld said. “It certainly seems that this is a stunning example of putting profits over safety.”


The Hospital Responds

The lawyer representing South Miami Hospital, Scott L. Mendlestein, did not return my phone calls.


However, South Miami Hospital’s Marketing and Public Relations Manager, Bethany Rundell, said the hospital issued a statement after they discovered their mistake.


The hospital’s official statement reads:

“The baby’s circumcision was an unfortunate mistake caused by a misread consent form. As soon as the error was discovered, the doctor and nurses let the family know what had occurred. We also immediately implemented new processes to ensure this mistake will not occur again. The procedure itself was performed following appropriate surgical guidelines and the baby didn’t have any complications. Nevertheless, we’re all deeply sorry that this happened.”


Rundell refused to answer any non-medical questions about the case, writing in an email: “I am not comfortable talking about the case that’s in litigation right now…”


The hospital’s Chief of Pediatrics and a neonatologist Jorge E. Perez, M.D. did answer some questions over email. He said the procedure takes about ten minutes and that babies recover from the wound in “a few days.”


Dr. Perez also cited seven reasons that circumcisions are routinely performed.


1) Ease of cleanliness and personal hygiene

2) Custom of approximately 80% of American males

3) Prevention of paraphimosis

4) Prevention of penile cancer

5) Questionable prevention of cervical cancer in females

6) Questionable prevention in the transmission of HIV

7) Prevention of need for later circumcision


According to Rundell, between May and August of this year, South Miami Hospital circumcised 22 percent of its total deliveries. It is a 467-bed hospital and approximately 4200 babies are born there each year. Rundell has gathered from anecdotal evidence that 50-60 percent of the boys born at the hospital are circumcised. This “is below the national average cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2007,” Rundell wrote in an email.


The hospital’s attempts to prevent Aronfeld and his client from speaking to the media have failed. On November 2 a judge denied issuing a gag order.


Mario’s Law

Aronfeld said demonstrations by anti-circumcision activists (known as “intactivists”) have been held outside the hospital, with dozens of protestors holding up signs.


Vera Delgado is helping to get support for a bill in the Florida legislature to create what intactivists are calling Mario’s Law [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3YPUk_bY8A]. The bill would require a waiting period on circumcisions, similar to the period a customer has to wait to buy a firearm. This way new moms and dads, who may be recovering from the labor and delivering and adjusting to life with a newborn, will not feel pressured into making a medical decision before they are ready.


Do you think there should be a waiting period before babies are circumcised? Do you think San Francisco and other cities should ban circumcision outright? Did you choose to circumcise your own sons? Please share your thoughts in the comment section below.




Bookmark and Share


Tags: circumcision, Florida, hospital mistakes, Mario's law, South Miami Hospital, Spencer Aronfeld, Vera Delgado



 

Comments (59)

Here in NZ, being uncircumcised is the norm. For the most part, I wish that people would actually THINK about it before they go one way or the other. Take a moment. Think. A waiting period seems sensible to me. .-= Melanie @ Frugal Kiwi´s last blog ..7 Years- No Itch =-.
I did not circumcise any of my three boys, and I think the waiting period is a great idea! Few parents think about circumcision and agree to it automatically. A waiting period would allow them time to research it, and to be sure of the decision.
This is an unfortunate example of hospital error. Thankfully no one lost their life, but nonetheless, it is really sad that someone's wishes were totally disregarded and of course, there's no reversing what has already been done. And there are so many unanswered and conflicting answers, which is frightening. I do think circumcision is a deeply personal decision and that parents have a right to choose or not to choose. But a waiting period seems like a good idea given the fact that many people might want to take their time to make an informed decision. .-= sheryl´s last blog ..Oh- to be 22 Again or not… =-.
I'm not clear on how a waiting period would work. Some moms and babies leave the hospital after 24 hours, so how long could it really be? I agree that it is a parent's choice and this hospital made a mistake.
My ex-husband from France was not circumcised. My husband from Sweden was not circumcised. My brother, born in the USA, was circumcised, although he is not Jewish. I can understand doing this for religious reasons, but I think blanket circumcision in the USA is wrong. This law sounds like a good idea. .-= Alexandra´s last blog ..Moon- Sun- Moon- Sun- Moon- Duck Harbor =-.
I am opposed to waiting periods. They are used as a harassment tool in reproductive rights cases and have no rational basis in law. Either the medical procedure is legal or it isn't. If the person has a right to the procedure, they should get it when they want it. However, I believe circumcision should be banned. It is unethical for health craw professionals to remove healthy tissue. It serves no medical purpose (Perez's list of 7 can be accomplished by removal of the entire penis but he wouldn't do that, would he?). And no, my three Jewish sons are intact. FYI, Vera Delgado is not a member of the Florida legislature so can't sponsor a bill. But I have been watching this Iitigation with some interest. .-= Jake Aryeh Marcus´s last blog ..Breastfeeding Not in My Family =-.
I agree with Jake Aryeh Marcus that waiting periods are used to harass women in reproductive rights cases, and the point is the same in the case of circumcision as well. Intactivists, like anti-abortion activists, want parents to make a specific decision, so they are merely attempting to make it more difficult to make the opposite one. In any case, circumcision without the consent of the parents is horrifying and an awful mistake on the part of this hospital. I hope they are held accountable. .-= Heather´s last blog ..A Horse in Nigeria and Induction of Labor Part 1 – Naturally =-.
I think the Florida case is a travesty. This is a personal, parental decision, but I can't see a problem with a waiting period. Whether or not it will make a difference? .-= Kris Bordessa´s last blog ..Kahumoku Ohana Hawaiian Music and Lifestyle Workshop =-.
Being from the UK, intactivism is something I wasn't aware of until I started meeting a lot of American mothers on-line. This is such a sad case, part of me feels that the worst part of this is that this tiny baby was ALONE (without his parents) during his stressful ordeal...is that standard practice? I can't imagine leaving a newborn all alone with strangers while they had an operation. Either way, I hope the parents can get the outcome they want/need, and that this doesn't just become another chance for activists to attack parents who make different choices to themselves.
We got our son circumcised for religious reasons but I was shocked to find out afterwards that my husband wasn't allowed in the room while they were doing it, unlike every other hospital procedure! They really do need to inform parents more about what it actually entails.
I'm so sorry for all that this family has been through. But as others have pointed out, I'm not sure that a waiting period is the answer--and certainly an all-out ban limits parents' choices altogether. I have all girls myself, but I'm wondering if maybe there could be some sort of information given to parents before delivery? I know ob/gyns and midwives already have so much to go over with patients, but maybe that's part of the birth plan discussion? .-= Kristen´s last blog ..Chef Q&A- Joseph George of Grand Traverse Resort & Spa =-.
I am amazed that a doctor will perform a circumcision on an infant in the NICU, who is obviously struggling with other health issues, unless specifically requested. Adding that stress to the body won't help a baby heal and grow and seems like an unnecessary risk.
Waiting period, no. Like others have said it's either legal or it isn't. But I think the same outcome can be achieved by simply NOT OFFERING it. This was the case in the city where my son was born. If you wanted it done, you had to contact one of the circumcision specialists in the city and have them come to the hospital to do it. The hospital never proposed it to us. That way the default is to leave the boy intact, but the parents who have actively decided to do it can arrange it.
I think male circumcision in the US should be treated the same as female circumcision. Here we view this type of surgery on females as a mutilation and assault. Why then is it still acceptable to brutalize male babies in the same manner? The American Association of Pediatrics can't even justify the procedure enough to recommend that it be done, and still it's the "norm"! Ridiculous!
This could all be avoided by reading the chart and not performing a surgical procedure without the parents consent. I think that most parents actually are aware when they walk into the hospital as to what their plans for their son's genitalia is... so I can't see a cooling off period achieving much. .-= Annie´s last blog ..Putting the brakes on elective inductions before 39 weeks =-.
If Florida's legislature will pass Mario's Law, it will make me proud to be a Floridian. I think a waiting period on circumcision is a great thing to implement. While I personally favor a total ban, and an abrupt end to this human rights violation, I also know that would never gain enough solid support to become a law. A waiting period is a more realistic first step, and could absolutely be feasible to pass into law. What I also think is that doctors and other nurse practitioners who don't believe in circumcision should refuse to perform them. One moment really stands out to me. When our son was born, our midwife asked my husband and I if we wanted him circumcised. We said no, absolutely not, and she said, "That's wonderful, you two. I can't tell you how much I hate doing circ's. It's just so wrong to cut babies, and I wish all parents knew that like you do." The first thought that came to mind was, "If you know it's wrong, why do you even leave it as an option for people who come to this birth center?" I didn't ask, though. I kind of wish I had. If everyone who was against this, but in a position of having to do this procedure sometimes, would just flat out refuse to do it, I think that would cut down on it a lot more than any law (even a local ban) would. It would make people think, "OK, so this doctor or nurse practitioner whom I trust to care for me and/or my baby, is against this enough to refuse to do it. Maybe there's a reason for that." I think this cultural change starts at the individual level to be most successful... although anything any legislature is willing to pass in the way of limiting availability of circumcisions surely won't hurt.
Circumcision should be ILLEGAL! Why is it that baby boys bodies are seen as less precious than baby girls? Female circumcision is illegal in the US. Religion should NEVER be an excuse for ignorance that results in removing a body part - from a baby! I say if it's a religious reason - wait til the man is of age, and see just how many men decide to do it - it would be next to none!
I did not choose circumcision for my son and would never choose it for any child of mine. I think it is really a bad idea in general and I don't advocate it. However, I don't want to see this issue legislated. Some religions believe that circumcision is part of their covenant with God and I do not want to see the government dictate whether or not they are allowed to practice their religion. I would love to see circumcision become a non-issue - something only done by parents who have strong religious reasons for doing so. .-= Kelly ´s last blog ..Quote of the Day- =-.
I'm not sure what the intent of the author was, but I am bummed that this article listed the mythical "benefits" of circumcision but not the risks. Losing the foreksin is very harmful to the sexual health of every man that loses it. The foreskin has a specific purpose & should be valued as an important piece of genitalia. 200 babies die every year from circumcisions, there are well-documented cases of botched circumcisions, scarring & desensitization are an issue, & circumcision is linked to erectile dysfunction. "Ease of cleanliness"? I'm a female & I am quite certain that my genitals are much "dirtier" & harder to clean than an intact penis. As a child, it is self-cleaning. As an adult, as simple extra swipe in the shower is all that is needed. "Custom of approximately 80% of American males"??? Only 33% of babies born last year in the U.S. had their genitals cut. This custom is no different than the custom of genital cutting for females. Yes, SOMETIMES female genital mutilation is worse, but in many cases FGM is LESS harmful & invasive than MGM. "Prevention of penile cancer"??? 1 in 100,000 circumcised men will get penile cancer. 2 in 100,000 intact men will get penile cancer. It's not "preventative;" it might slightly lower the risk, but also dramatically increases the risk of infection, scars, & erectile dysfunction. 1 in 8 women will get breast cancer; if we're thinking preventatively, we should be removing the breast buds of infant girls. The word "prevention" needs to not be used. "May slightly lower the risk" is more accurate, & in all cases there exists debatable evidence, which should be provided to make a well-rounded case. "Prevention of need for later circumcision"??? That makes as much sense as removing our tonsils & kidneys at birth, since those sometimes cause trouble later in life. When is the medical community going to start experimenting on girls to see what parts of their bodies we can cut off in the name of "prevention"? If circumcising a baby girl reduced the risk of HIV slightly, would you do it? I'm not sure if that author was trying to provide a "balanced" viewpoint, but there is no balance in the world of genital cutting. The evidence overwhelmingly says "DO NOT CUT." .-= Kristen´s last blog ..Giving Thanks at Mothering =-.
P.S. I don't know why that blog was listed as my last, but it is not. This one is: http://mothering.com/all-things-mothering/pregnancy-birth/remembering-baby-fox .-= Kristen´s last blog ..Giving Thanks at Mothering =-.
Mothering › Baby Articles › More on the Newborn who was Circumcised Against his Parents’ Will