Stern can KMA.
post #41 of 62
5/7/08 at 5:06pm
Ok so I have the writ. I want to give those who are interested the opportunity to read it but I am trying to figure out how to best do that. I suppose those who are interested can PM me and I can email it to you. You need to be sure you can handle a 6mb attachment. It's 155 pages long but most of that seems to be attachments of previous court documents.
Sorry, I gotta disagree. This case is by far worse than any parent circumcising a baby. So many parents circumcise their baby boys because that is all they know. Maybe "ignorance is no excuse" but I simply cannot lump in parents who are good people doing what they think is right and trying to what best for their child with a man who is being intentionally cruel to his 13 old son.
Originally Posted by perspective;11161569I
f this was a 13 year old girl facing the need for an abortion, courts have at least given respect to her views, and her rights. Yet in this case, this boy, facing many of the same issues, and at the same age, is still being legally shoved around like he is just owned property.
|Among the eight affidavits Father submitted
to the Trial Court was one from Michael Ellen, M.D.,
a board-certified urologist, licensed to practice
medicine in the state of Washington. He is also a
member of the Northwest Urology Society and of the
American Society of Clinical Urologists. He was then
currently Chairman of the Division of Surgery at
Providence St. Peter Hospital [in Olympia,
Washington]. Dr. Ellen found that:
A. Circumcision would be a safe procedure for the
child, with no significant risk of complications;
B. Circumcision results in greatly reduced risks
of penile cancer and of some infections (such as
C. There will be no health detriment to the child from a circumcision.
D. There is evidence of glanular adhesions which
should have disappeared by age three. This alone is
cause for recommendation for the procedure.
E. He envisions performing the procedure under
F. The procedure itself will be painless (with some
minor discomfort for about three days afterward but
not enough to preclude him from going to school or
participating in most normal daily activities).
Affidavit of Michael Ellen, M.D. (June 7, 2004).
Two other physicians, Len Albert, M.D., and
Larry Perrin, M.D. (both licensed to practice
medicine in the state of Washington) submitted
affidavits concluding that:
A. Numbing agents are used to insure that the
procedure itself is without pain. There may be some
minor discomfort for about three days after the
procedure---but nothing that would preclude M
attending school or carrying on most of his normal
daily activities. After that, they anticipate no
discomfort at all.
B. The procedure does not require hospitalization
or general anesthesia. It can easily be done in Dr.
Michael Ellen's office.
C. Medically, there is no 'downside' to being
circumcised. Apart from the religious reason for the
procedure, there are also significant medical reasons
favoring the operation as well. Specifically, (a) the
rate of penile cancer in circumcised males is many
times lower than it is in uncircumcised males, and
(b) the rate of certain infections (such as ballinitis) is
much lower in circumcised males than it is in
uncircumcised males. Affidavit of Len Albert, M.D.
at 1 and 3 (June 3, 2004); Affidavit of Larry Perrin, M.D. at 2-3 (June 4, 2004).
On thing for Oregon residents to consider - it might be possible pass legislation requiring a minors consent for circumcision if the minor is over the age of 12. Oregon is a pretty liberal state, right? That legislation (if passed) could be challenged, but it would take time to do that.
I haven't even read all the replies, sorry. But should it not at least require BOTH parent's signature on a consent form to have the child circumcised? The mother was against it, was she not?
Anyway, this is the father's conversion to Judaism that has sprung this, right? I thought a boy was only considered Jewish if his MOTHER was Jewish, not the father?
Does anyone know if there has been news about this father's appeal to the Supreme Court, or any activity regarding this being sent back to the lower court?
I can't believe it's legal to subject a thirteen year old to unnecessary surgery against his will. And I am disappointed with the synagogue that they would accept and endorse a forced conversion from a teen-ager old enough to think for himself, and believe or not believe.
Actually, if this grinds its way to the bitter end the kid could be at least 15 before it is resolved. And the older he gets the harder it would be to believe the court would allow him to be forcibly circumcised. But this is the US so who knows.
ETA: For perspective, IFIRC, he was only 8 or 9 when this started.