UK Case - interesting implications

[Fyrestorm]

Has this been posted here?

I think it has major implications here in the US.

UK case - doctor being sued for infant circ by 20 year old man.

A test-case being brought by a 20-year-old man circumcised as a baby could, if successful, open the floodgates to claimants.

The unnamed man is to sue a GP still practising in Greater London for physical and psychological damage.

He will argue that circumcision on a child without a medical requirement is mutilation.

Performing surgery on a person without adequate consent constitutes battery in law, which can be prosecuted in the civil courts.

But given the lack of consent the surgery also constitutes an assault which can be prosecuted under criminal law - meaning a guilty verdict could lead to a prison term.

The test-case is being supported by a legal firm, leading urologist, child protection agency and circumcision awareness body The National Organisation of Restoring Men (Norm).

[SlackerDad]

Unfortunately, I don't think something like this could ever be allowed to establish a precedent. Even if society's views one day evolve to see RIC for what it is, they will have to treat it like a "truth and reconciliation" situation as we have seen in South Africa, Rwanda, etc. When an injustice is sufficiently widespread, it cannot be allowed to later be the object of lawsuits as the financial impact would be too large and widespread, not to mention how it would tie up the courts.

[Fyrestorm]

I agree...but the way I see it - If doctors start to see the financial implications of future lawsuits by those they cut...they just may stop soliciting it!

[hillymum]

I don't understand why the man isn't suing his father rather than the doctor!

"His father took him to be circumcised shortly after birth in accordance with his own religious beliefs."

The father, who is also circumcised, gave consent for the procedure. It's parent's who need to be targeted and educated as well as doctors.

[Fyrestorm]

I agree that parents should be held responsible...however:

1. It's easier psychologically to sue a doctor over your parents

2. I believe in a lot of cases it was done without consent (not in this case necessarily - but in the late 60's and 70's it was just part of the newborn procedures)

3. If the doctors keep getting hit in the wallet, it just won't be offered anymore. Suing parents might give the man personal satisfaction, but won't make a dent to the medical community.

It's much more effective to stop doctors from doing it.

[Minarai]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

3. If the doctors keep getting hit in the wallet, it just won't be offered anymore. Suing parents might give the man personal satisfaction, but won't make a dent to the medical community.

I agree with that, but there's a HUGE hole in that logic:
Judging by what happened in the 70s when men and families started suing doctors for circ without consent, I think it's more likely that if men keep suing on grounds of medical battery, Congress will back the doctors and make it illegal for victims to sue rather than get to the root of the problem.

[MyBoysBlue]

I know that here in Canada doctors have been warned about it being possible that they can get sued. I has lowered the numbers somewhat but there are still many who ignore it because not many males know they can or are even inclined to do so. I can imagine it would be difficult for a male to admit that they are not please with the state of the peins and actually seek legal action.

[SlackerDad]

Originally Posted by Minarai

I agree with that, but there's a HUGE hole in that logic:
Judging by what happened in the 70s when men and families started suing doctors for circ without consent, I think it's more likely that if men keep suing on grounds of medical battery, Congress will back the doctors and make it illegal for victims to sue rather than get to the root of the problem.

I would actually say it would be good to make it illegal to sue--but only in conjunction with a law making it illegal to continue to circ. The problem with allowing lawsuits is that having tens of millions of potential plaintiffs (even men who don't really feel upset about their circ might want some free money) is just not practical.

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by SlackerDad

The problem with allowing lawsuits is that having tens of millions of potential plaintiffs (even men who don't really feel upset about their circ might want some free money) is just not practical.

I say good! Overwhelm the system with men looking for revenge! I'm all good with that. It would send a REAAAALLLLY LOUD message.

I will say that a HUGE class action suit would also work!

1 class action suit per hospital...including every boy that was cut up there since the FGM bill went into effect 12 years ago...that would be fabulous!

[SlackerDad]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

I say good! Overwhelm the system with men looking for revenge! I'm all good with that. It would send a REAAAALLLLY LOUD message.

I will say that a HUGE class action suit would also work!

1 class action suit per hospital...including every boy that was cut up there since the FGM bill went into effect 12 years ago...that would be fabulous!

Doctors and hospitals do engage in some good...are you sure you want to totally torpedo them? I feel like the whole thing is what sociologists call a "structure" that overwhelms the individual. Until quite recently, and still in some regions, a hospital that refused to circ would soon find itself with no patients (no maternity patients anyway), meaning nothing would be accomplished since it would just mean expansion of maternity wards at other hospitals where circ was still performed.

[outlier]

Unless the parents are the ones who picked up a scalpel and did it him/herself, I don't think suing parents will do any good. You can't sue someone for wanting to do--but not actually doing--something to you, right?

I don't see how circumcision will stop until doctors refuse or are otherwise compelled to stop doing them.

[fruitful womb]

Originally Posted by SlackerDad

Doctors and hospitals do engage in some good...are you sure you want to totally torpedo them? I feel like the whole thing is what sociologists call a "structure" that overwhelms the individual. Until quite recently, and still in some regions, a hospital that refused to circ would soon find itself with no patients (no maternity patients anyway), meaning nothing would be accomplished since it would just mean expansion of maternity wards at other hospitals where circ was still performed.

I highly doubt that. Most parents seem to think doctors have some kind of god complex. The message that says "genital reduction surgery on a healthy baby its not only unethical but also NOT necessary" would ring loud and clear.

This would bring a huge sigh of relief for American parents. Why do so many of them wish for girls?

[PuppyFluffer]

I think suits on the grounds of INFORMED consent are certainly appropriate. How many parents are genuinely informed about the function of the foreskin and what is lost to circumcision and the real harm.

I realize this is a UK case, but here in the US, we have a law forbidding female genital mutilation. Under the Constitution, it's not legal to make a law which is discriminatory based on gender. So, all boys who were circumcised since the passage of that law were denied equal protection under the law. I want to see those suits come forth!

It is my desire to live long enough to see this issue before the US Supreme Court.

[Fellow Traveler]

I saw this a few days ago and I am not sure what to think yet. I was under the impression that the Mirror wasn't the best source. I have been trying to find out independently the status and when I do I'll post details. I did speak with someone who noted she saw a very similar post on the General Medical Council's website but that was over a week ago and she couldn't find it again but is still looking.

As to the case itself, I of course hope he'll win but I am not hopeful. I think it helps that his father is supporting him in the effort and would contribute on his son's behalf. I do think the doctors are the right people to sue since parents may have been misled. And, if parents support the lawsuit, I think that absolves them a bit. Conversely, if they fight you on it, add them as co-defendants. But the docs are primary.

[Minarai]

Originally Posted by PuppyFluffer

I think suits on the grounds of INFORMED consent are certainly appropriate. How many parents are genuinely informed about the function of the foreskin and what is lost to circumcision and the real harm.

I realize this is a UK case, but here in the US, we have a law forbidding female genital mutilation. Under the Constitution, it's not legal to make a law which is discriminatory based on gender. So, all boys who were circumcised since the passage of that law were denied equal protection under the law. I want to see those suits come forth!

It is my desire to live long enough to see this issue before the US Supreme Court.

You have to keep in mind, though, that there is immense controversy regarding the legitimacy of the Fourteenth Amendment; it's possible that what's keeping MGM legal is that the Supreme Court believes (like a large segment of the population) that the Fourteenth Amendment is illegitimate (the same logic that allowed for post-Civil War segregation).

[hakunangovi]

The doctor's conduct may not have been too different from what we have experienced from most of them in the U.S. That is to say that INFORMED consent was not given since the parents are rarely informed about any of the detrimental aspects of circumcision.

This can only be viewed as highly unethical conduct on the part of the doctors and hospitals. For that I hope they get the pants sued off them.

Lets face it - if the medical community had been up front from the very beginning, most parents would not have bought into the custom, the vast majority of males would be intact and we would not be here debating the issue.

[calpurnia]

is there another source for this story?

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by calpurnia

is there another source for this story?

Not yet, I am trying to dig into it though.

[serendipity22]

I think suits on the grounds of INFORMED consent are certainly appropriate.

I think this is very important.

Lets face it, how many doctors are going to change their behaviour because of what might happen 20 years down the track?

At 18 a man has only 3 years to sue (which is most unfair). Most 18 year olds would not even know where to start. There are plenty of distractions at that age. Its very difficult to sue doctors. Ive seen people who had a strong case, but they are delayed by so much red tape that they give up. Doctors have the best legal defence that money can buy.

Its more effective for parents to sue for not being informed properly. A doctor would be much more deterred by the possibility of being sued 6 months after a circ. Flatt v Kanak was a win for circ because the judge had no sense of fairness.

Re: Circumcised men who might sue because they just want the money, perhaps their suit would be invalidated if they had/would later authorised circ of their own sons. Anyway it might take a while before that becomes a problem.

Even a few successful suits re a 'average' circ could greatly deter doctors.

[SlackerDad]

Originally Posted by Minarai

You have to keep in mind, though, that there is immense controversy regarding the legitimacy of the Fourteenth Amendment; it's possible that what's keeping MGM legal is that the Supreme Court believes (like a large segment of the population) that the Fourteenth Amendment is illegitimate (the same logic that allowed for post-Civil War segregation).

I've never heard this argument before (that anyone thinks the 14th Amendment is illegitimate). On what logic, disenfranchisement of Southern whites? Do you have a cite?