Circumcised ???? If so....you need a lawyer

[308nato]

Mens News Daily

From the story........Berkeley, CA - This month, North Dakota District Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger denied a motion for summary judgment by defendants in the Flatt v. Kantak circumcision case, and decided it will proceed to trial on February 3, 2003. The precedent setting decision confirms that a baby who is circumcised can sue his doctor when he reaches age of majority, even if there was parental consent for the circumcision, and even if the results are considered to be 'normal.'

"This is the latest in a series of warnings to doctors who still circumcise: proceed at your peril, because even if you get parental consent and do a standard job of the circumcision, the child can still grow up and sue you for taking away part of his penis," says lawyer J. Steven Svoboda, executive director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC).



At last. I am a victim !!!!! I have been horribly wronged and I want cash. The doctor who did it is dead, but, doesn't his family owe me reparations?

WTF is wrong with these people, the judges included.

 

[LordMaul]

Really?

I mean...OF COURSE! THESE MEN MUST BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE!

 

[walrus]

He needs to Get over it!!

 

[her209]

I'm going to sue my mom for bringing me into this world.

I'm going to sue my teachers for teaching me useless stuff.

MONEY MONEY MONEY GOT THAT MONEY!

 

[notfred]

I guess I can't sue. oh well.

 

[tokamak]

you better believe that if someone cut off a piece of little tokamak, i'd be pretty p!ssed about it :|

 

[bonk102]

first the fat guy suing fast food and now this, damn waht is the world coming to

 

[glen]

Is there really medical evidence that supports it?
If not, and they did it anyway, why not sue?

 

[TNTrulez]

hahah this is a total load of crap. What's wrong with that judge?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glen
Is there really medical evidence that supports it?
If not, and they did it anyway, why not sue?

It's not done for medical reasons

It's done because parents request it or for religious reasons.
The time, I think, has finally come to hang all the lawyers. :|

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: glen
Is there really medical evidence that supports it?
If not, and they did it anyway, why not sue?

It's not done for medical reasons

It's done because parents request it or for religious reasons.
The time, I think, has finally come to hang all the lawyers. :|

Finally? I thought it has come long time ago. Parents made medical decisions for their kids, and that's that.
Otherwise if a doctor will face lawsuits even when he has parental consent, doctors would just deny care to kids.
What's next? Parents send kid to catholic school, then kid decides he wants to be a Muslim and sues the Catholic school?

 

[Sir Fredrick]

I can't believe you guys are comparing this to the fast food case.

Circumcision or other body mutilations should not be performed until the child is of age to make the decision for himself.
If it were standard practice to cut off the left thumb of every baby, you'd probably roll your eyes at anyone who wanted to sue about that too.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

...and some judges would happily tell you that you can't abort a 6 week fetus either.

 

[Jeffwo]

Whatcha call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?















A good start!

LOL,
Jeff

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Sir Fredrick
I can't believe you guys are comparing this to the fast food case.

Circumcision or other body mutilations should not be performed until the child is of age to make the decision for himself.
If it were standard practice to cut off the left thumb of every baby, you'd probably roll your eyes at anyone who wanted to sue about that too.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

Originally posted by: PSYWVic

Originally posted by: glen
Is there really medical evidence that supports it?
If not, and they did it anyway, why not sue?

It's not done for medical reasons

It's done because parents request it or for religious reasons.
The time, I think, has finally come to hang all the lawyers. :|

yeah, so if parents have the right to have pieces of their kids bodies removed for no reason other than it's the "norm", they can do ahead and cut off one nut out of two, right? after all, it serves no purpose other than to "back up" the other one!

i fully support this guy and his lawsuit

 

[Vic]

I might support it if he was suing his parents, the persons who authorized his "mutilation." But he's not, he suing the doctor... :disgust:
You do realize that circumcision is a 3,500 year old religious tradition amongst a certain, very prominent, culture??

 

[tcsenter]

If it were standard practice to cut off the left thumb of every baby, you'd probably roll your eyes at anyone who wanted to sue about that too.

PUHLEEZE! If you lose a thumb, you lose approx. 50% of the use of your hand. If you can show some measurable difference in 'performance' between cut and uncut males, I'd love to see it.

There is nothing whatsoever 'essential' about a little flap of skin that is prone to infection and harboring microbes. I realize that you have gained a bit of fickle emotional attachment to your little flap of skin after viewing your penis in a certain way for as long as you can remember, and that you cannot imagine your penis looking any other way. Men undeniably develop an identity with their penis during childhood and adolescence and are overly sensitive about the thought of anyone messing around with it (using instruments).

Had I not been circumcised I probably wouldn't want to part with that little piece of skin, either, even if it were medically necessary. I would have become emotionally attached to it and as we know fickle emotionalism can dispose one to irrational judgements and unsound reasoning, which are defining characteristic of circumcision opponents and causes them to make such absurd analogies like cutting one's hands or thumbs off. Clearly, the comparison is not just misapt, it is disproportionate by several orders of magnitude. That is your fickle emotionalism at work...

We're not talking about lopping off the entire damned head, for crying out loud.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: Sir Fredrick
I can't believe you guys are comparing this to the fast food case.

Circumcision or other body mutilations should not be performed until the child is of age to make the decision for himself.
If it were standard practice to cut off the left thumb of every baby, you'd probably roll your eyes at anyone who wanted to sue about that too.

You can't believe it?!?! why not!? they are totally the same thing. you have some ignorant moron who is greedy for cash and will go to any methods to get it. Maybe circumcision should be stopped (I think it should remain a choice for the parents, but that is just my opinion) but to sue because your parents made a decision about it when you where like not even a day old? That seems like you are going just a little to far.

 

[MichaelD]

Wow, Berkely CA reported this first...go figure.

I'm sure the Fine Studentz of Berkely University are painting their "Save The Penis" signs as we speak.

This is just sick. The World has finally begun it's descent into The Pit. This is like suing the girl that popped your cherry (figuratively speaking, of course) for robbing you of your semen which could have possibly been offspring....what a load of crap!

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: Sir Fredrick
I can't believe you guys are comparing this to the fast food case.

Circumcision or other body mutilations should not be performed until the child is of age to make the decision for himself.
If it were standard practice to cut off the left thumb of every baby, you'd probably roll your eyes at anyone who wanted to sue about that too.

do it the jewish way if u must tis the manly way to mutilate

 

[Jfur]

How much do you feel all that skin and nerve endings were worth?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

If it were standard practice to cut off the left thumb of every baby, you'd probably roll your eyes at anyone who wanted to sue about that too.

PUHLEEZE! If you lose a thumb, you lose approx. 50% of the use of your hand. If you can show some measurable difference in 'performance' between cut and uncut males, I'd love to see it.

There is nothing whatsoever 'essential' about a little flap of skin that is prone to infection and harboring microbes. I realize that you have gained a bit of fickle emotional attachment to your little flap of skin after viewing your penis in a certain way for as long as you can remember, and that you cannot imagine your penis looking any other way. Men undeniably develop an identity with their penis during childhood and adolescence and are overly sensitive about the thought of anyone messing around with it (using instruments).

Had I not been circumcised I probably wouldn't want to part with that little piece of skin, either, even if it were medically necessary. I would have become emotionally attached to it and as we know fickle emotionalism can dispose one to irrational judgements and unsound reasoning, which are defining characteristic of circumcision opponents and causes them to make such absurd analogies like cutting one's hands or thumbs off. Clearly, the comparison is not just misapt, it is disproportionate by several orders of magnitude. That is your fickle emotionalism at work...

We're not talking about lopping off the entire damned head, for crying out loud.

From what I understand the proceedure is very painful for an adult to go through. It is not so much the cutting but the healing afterwards that is excruciating. Just think that everytime Mr Happy gets excited while you are sleeping you get to peg out your personal pain meter.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Wow, Berkely CA reported this first...go figure.

I'm sure the Fine Studentz of Berkely University are painting their "Save The Penis" signs as we speak.

This is just sick. The World has finally begun it's descent into The Pit. This is like suing the girl that popped your cherry (figuratively speaking, of course) for robbing you of your semen which could have possibly been offspring....what a load of crap!

Accually the world started this decnt LONG AGO.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Sir Fredrick
I can't believe you guys are comparing this to the fast food case.

Circumcision or other body mutilations should not be performed until the child is of age to make the decision for himself.
If it were standard practice to cut off the left thumb of every baby, you'd probably roll your eyes at anyone who wanted to sue about that too.

Baer added, "The court also observed that, in an informed consent case, the type of information to be disclosed to a parent is a 'standard set by law for physicians rather than one which physicians may or may not impose upon themselves.' This is a huge statement and will put the physicians in their place if we can convince nine reasonable people that the physicians failed to give adequate information."

I will agree or disagree when there is more information available. The plaintiffs are arguing there was a lack of informed consent, which in my opinion, would put the doctor at fault. Though the penalty for that should be weighed upon the standards of practice at the time regarding circumcision. They also claim the standard for consent should be based upon written law; well then this case should be judged upon precedence at the time of the occurance rather than what may be law now or considered "adequate information".

I honestly hope the doctor wins this case or if there is judgement against him, the penalty will be tempered by what was considered standard practice of the day. I can understand the litigation in some repects. Something like circumcision was just regarded as standard practice following the birth of a male child and the procedure was used without being given much regard. This case will give pause to doctors just indiscriminately recommending this procedure.

One thing that troubles me is the flip side of the coin. Can a child of 18 sue his doctor for not recommending circumcision? Something that is recognized as standard procedure was not performed and now the child at 18 will have to undergo painful surgery to be circumcised. Stupid, I know, but given the penchant in the U.S. for stupid litigation, I can see it actually happening.