medical malpractice insurance & dropping circ'ing drs

I think it's a very good possibility. I didn't think anyone had caught on to the idea - but if one company is doing it, others will do it.

In 2003 the St Paul Pioneer Press wrote a typical formulaic article saying circumcision is good for you. The latest new invention or medical product made from body parts is not in the news.
If they were real newspapers they would tell average people who is making what from their body parts to raise awareness of it.
That'd reduce circumcision.

I'd like it if we had debates on whether artificial skin should be made as a public service, not for profit. We could have debates on whether 100 burn victims getting new skin is worth removing part of a man's penis. Foreskins would only be 'ripped' off cadavers who are registered as organ donors. In life it would only happen to adult volunteers. Men wishing for cosmetic surgery...instead of paying for it...should receive money for it.
Fat chance.
And even less than none for an end to anti-wrinkle cream. Newspapers would never want to ignite a controversy about that.

It is absolutely possible. The recent report of a 1/3 drop in the circumcision rate in Saskatchewan can be directly attributed to Dr. Denis Kendall's memo to members of The College of Physicians and Surgeons/Saskatchewan warning them of the legal rammifications of the procedure and the possibility that their malpractice group denying coverage should there be an accident. Apparently, this also had some effect in Manitoba as their circumcision rate has experienced a similar and greater rapid drop. This month's statement from The CPS/British Columbia coupled with the death of the Vancouver boy should have a similar effect. I expect these events will spell the death of the circumcision procedure in Canada within just a few years. I expect that a parent who insists on circumcising their child will have to hire a detective to find a doctor still willing to take the risk and do it.

If you will remember, this is similar to what happened in Great Britian just after WWII. there was the Gairdner Report and Parliament ended funding based on the report and within just a few years, circumcision was something that "used to be done." Now many young Brits are not even aware of their country's history of male genital mutilation and condemn us for our continuance of the practice. If they looked closely, most would find their history of the practice indelibly marked on their fathers and grandfathers penises.

The Stowell case was a warning shot and there are other cases in the pipeline. The Flatt vs. Kantak case has been appealed to the ND Supreme Court. All over the country, parents are suing dopctors for botched circumcisions. Eventually the malpractice insurance companies will get the message. When they do, the procedure will carry too much risk and they will abandon it. As The American Academy of Pediatricians say "The risks outweight the benefits." The "risks" to the insurance companies and to the physicians pocket books will "outweigh" the "potential" profits.

Frank

Quote:

Possibly. There are a limited number of insurance companies who provide malpractice insurance in each state. You can call your state insurance commissioner and find out who they are. Then you can write them and ask that they stop providing this coverage. It would probably be helpful if you mentioned the William Stowell case, the Vancouver death and provided quotes and links from The CPS/Saskatchewan and CPS/British Columbia.

The Stowell case is a landmark because William is the first man to sue his circumciser. It is notable that this is a celebrated case in the intactivist movement and a reference to Attorneys for the Rights of the Child will remind them that there are lawyers gunning for them. The Saskatchewan and British Columbia statements clearly show that the people they insure are aware of the potential danger. You may also mention the Flatt vs. Kantak appeal with the quote of the ND Supreme Court Justice, Dale Sandstrom.

Even if you are successful in getting them to see the coming avalanche of lawsuits or even the potential, expect the official announcement to take a year or more. These huge companies move very slowly.

Frank

Quote:
One thing to gun for is to stop Medicaid funding of circ. Did you know that tax dollars pay for one-quarter of all circumcisions in this country: I was flabbergasted. See http://www.icgi.org/ under Medicaid for more information.

Also, it's not just parents of babies with botched circs who can bring lawsuits. Even a "perfect" circ obviously has the 100 percent complication rate of destroying the foreskin - and if the parents weren't given true informed consent as to the structure and function of the foreskin, as well as all the risks of circumcision, then they have a potential cause of action for medical malpractice.