South Miami hospital sued for accidental circumcision on newborn

[nick1985]

If you're going to continue your obsession with head cheese, you should at least learn to spell smegma correctly.

:thumbsup:

 

[Double Trouble]

In theory, sure, but good luck proving compensable damages.

- wolf

I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the mere fact that they did the procedure on a minor without parental consent is enough to sue for punitive damages. The plaintiff doesn't even have to prove any specific damages, they would simply sue for mental anguish etc. If I'm a parent, and I want my child to be uncircumcised, the fact that there is no long term physical damage (in addition to the physical alteration of course) doesn't mean a whole lot, I've still suffered irreparable harm. The only question is going to be, how much is the hospital going to end up paying. I'm guessing $5 million or so plus legal fees.

 

[Slew Foot]

From a legal standpoint, if the parents consented to a procedure and the guy lopped off the penis, it's malpractice. If there is NO CONSENT (implied or written), then performing an invasive procedure is considered assault or battery. Kinda like if you're passed out drunk in a bar and some guy lops off your foreskin with a beer bottle, thats assault.

 

[Xcobra]

How?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/11/health/webmd/main1794135.shtml

I have no idea about the AIDS thing, but to claim cleanliness and all that bullcrap to be better circumcised is just plain dumb. Try not taking a shower and it won't matter if you're circumcised or not. That claim just irritates me.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Not even $1 million will give that baby back his foreskin.

The real travesty though is that male genital mutilation is automatic in this country.

Your kidding right . Why is it that the foreskin is removed, Do ya know . It wouldn't have anything to do with health would it?

I got no problem with the charges or the 1 million dollars . So long as that 1 million dollars goes into a trust until the child is 18 years old . I don't want the parents getting 1 dime . After all the child won't need counciling or any such thing . And it is the parents job to raise the child .

 

[Nemesis 1]

I have no idea about the AIDS thing, but to claim cleanliness and all that bullcrap to be better circumcised is just plain dumb. Try not taking a shower and it won't matter if you're circumcised or not. That claim just irritates me.

WHY does it bother you ?

 

[Double Trouble]

From a legal standpoint, if the parents consented to a procedure and the guy lopped off the penis, it's malpractice. If there is NO CONSENT (implied or written), then performing an invasive procedure is considered assault or battery. Kinda like if you're passed out drunk in a bar and some guy lops off your foreskin with a beer bottle, thats assault.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Just seems weird and inappropriate to charge someone with assault and battery because of what is likely a clerical error.

Lets say a dispatcher provides a wrong address number to an officer, who then (lets say, following all the right procedures etc) goes into the wrong house, and ends up in a fight with a homeowner who doesn't know he's a cop. Do you charge someone with assault if the innocent homeowner ends up hurt because of the clerical mistake?

 

[Double Trouble]

So long as that 1 million dollars goes into a trust until the child is 18 years old . I don't want the parents getting 1 dime . After all the child won't need counciling or any such thing . And it is the parents job to raise the child .

Uh wah? The parents are hurt as much -- if not more -- than the child. The child likely would never even know the difference, much like other children that are not circumcised. The parents are the ones who have lost the option to have their child undergo the procedure or not.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Just because your parents are legal gaurdians . I would like to know and this goes with the charges were do parents have the right to make this decision for a child . Were talking Child abuse now . If the charges stick and they win the lotto . Whats to stop a child from sueing their parents for exact same crime . Child abuse is illegal in this country. If there are damages this damage applies to every child who has had forskin removed. Child abuse Child abuse. I going to follow this one see how it turns out.

 

[Double Trouble]

Just because your parents are legal gaurdians . I would like to know and this goes with the charges were do parents have the right to make this decision for a child . Were talking Child abuse now . If the charges stick and they win the lotto . Whats to stop a child from sueing their parents for exact same crime . Child abuse is illegal in this country. If there are damages this damage applies to every child who has had forskin removed. Child abuse Child abuse. I going to follow this one see how it turns out.

Huh? Not sure where you're getting the "child abuse" angle: nobody has argued that the decision is any kind of abuse. Further, it's not illegal at this point, so the child could not sue the parents for doing something that's perfectly legal. Now might it become illegal in 30 years? Sure (though, I doubt it), but until it becomes illegal there is no possible charge or case for child abuse.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Huh? Not sure where you're getting the "child abuse" angle: nobody has argued that the decision is any kind of abuse. Further, it's not illegal at this point, so the child could not sue the parents for doing something that's perfectly legal. Now might it become illegal in 30 years? Sure (though, I doubt it), but until it becomes illegal there is no possible charge or case for child abuse.

It's Nemesis. His reasoning is no more sound than his spelling, grammar or syntax.

 

[kage69]

This has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Sorry to hear, I can only imagine that's due to lack of information on your part. Having a cap on your wang provides a better area for bacteria to live, sorry if that doesn't align with your personal beliefs.

You contradicted yourself. You said that the circumcision isn't mutilation because it doesn't prevent urination or reproduction. How is removal of a clitoris any different? In both cases you are removing a part of the body that is effectively a sensory organ.

I think I can see how someone insisting on the term mutilation would think so, but no, it is different. I've already stated some of the benefits of being circumcised - there are no analogous aspects to having a clit removed. Not even a cosmetic one since as we all know the clit is tucked away within the labia and out of view. The absence of some skin (I'm hesitant to call it an organ) for the guy does not alter the function or effects wrt sex - the same can definitely not be said of female genital mutilation where the most nerve dense item is completely removed. For some kind of parity here a circumcision would have to include losing 'the thunderdome.'
And as a matter of fact, it's common among cultures that practice female mutilation to not stop with the removal of the clit - they'll go and knife up the labia and then stitch them together, leaving a very small opening for urination and menstruation. This extra side of wtf does indeed make urination and procreation difficult, the wedding night being probably very unpleasant for the woman.

I'd like to go on record as saying I don't really care if guys are circumcised or not, just that I don't think others decrying mutilation on this issue is either polite or appropriate. Certainly not in a day and age where people customize the hell out of their bodies for the hell of it. Implants, lifts, labia reduction, bleaching, the list goes on and on for procedures way more extreme yet quite acceptable in today's society.

 

[Wreckem]

I don't know about the assault and battery angle, that part doesn't make sense, but suing for medical malpractice makes perfect sense. The hospital did an unwanted and irreversible medical procedure on someone's child.....

Under Tort law battery is an intentional tort but it is currently rarely used for medical cases without consent.

If the Dr. did not have consent he committed a civil battery on the child. They are likely suing under battery because Florida probably has tort reform caps on medical malpractice.

Florida has a $500k cap on medical malpractice damages and Florida still allows medical battery claims, although they are rare.

The biggest issue here is damages. The plaintiffs an argue all they want that they baby was seriously injured and his human rights were violated(yes they are arguing that too), but its unlikely a judge or jury will see a circumcision as major harm. They won't get anywhere near $1million or the $500k malpractice cap.

 

[Wreckem]

I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the mere fact that they did the procedure on a minor without parental consent is enough to sue for punitive damages. The plaintiff doesn't even have to prove any specific damages, they would simply sue for mental anguish etc. If I'm a parent, and I want my child to be uncircumcised, the fact that there is no long term physical damage (in addition to the physical alteration of course) doesn't mean a whole lot, I've still suffered irreparable harm. The only question is going to be, how much is the hospital going to end up paying. I'm guessing $5 million or so plus legal fees.

Yes punitive damages can be had, will they be awarded in this case? Likely no.

In medical battery cases damages are typically lower if the procedure went smoothly and there was no actual harm done. Whether people in this thread want to believe it or not, the vast majority of society views circumscion as a medically beneficial procedure. As a result unless they get jury full of anti-cricumcision people they arent going to get a huge judgement. They still have to prove it was medical battery and not medical negligence. They have to prove intent, and it wasn't just a screwup. If it was just a screwup, its likely medical malpractice and they are capped at $500k of which 30-40% would go directly to the lawyers.

 

[ichy]

The real travesty is smagma. Disgusting smagma.

Uh, if that's an issue then the real travesty is not showering!

Someone should be punished for this (performing an unnecessary medical procedure on a kid against the parents' wishes is NOT ok) but a million dollars is a little over the top. I'm anti-circumcision, but I'd undergo it for that kind of cash!

 

[ShawnD1]

If the doctor amputates your leg (thinking you were a diabetic), is JUST an apology and no bill acceptable to you?

Big difference there champ. My dick is cut but it still kinda works. Legs no longer work when they are cut off.

The person who wrote the bible must be laughing his ass off.
"hey guys, I'll put in this book that you're supposed to slash at your dick with a knife"
(it symbolizes the covenant between god and abraham)

Uh wah? The parents are hurt as much -- if not more -- than the child. The child likely would never even know the difference, much like other children that are not circumcised. The parents are the ones who have lost the option to have their child undergo the procedure or not.

!?!?!?
Alright so what you're telling me is that if I amputate your son's leg, it hurts you more than it hurts him because... your pride is damage or something? wtf? I don't know the rest of you but when I have a baby I don't have any intention of going around being like "Yeah look at mah baby's foreskin! It's all there! Yeah!"

The parents are not hurt in any way. It's the baby who was cut to pieces here. Nemesis is right - the parents should get nothing and the baby should get the 1 million because it's his penis they slashed. If the parents want some money, they need to put their own junk on the chopping block.

 

[dfuze]

I don't know about the assault and battery angle, that part doesn't make sense, but suing for medical malpractice makes perfect sense. The hospital did an unwanted and irreversible medical procedure on someone's child.....

That is true. They should not be doing procedures without approval. However, while I don't know what dollar amount you would put on it it is definitely not worth $1 million.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMo...n-mistake-horrifying-mother/story?id=11626925I found the bolded part the most interesting. If this was a case of assult and battery, shouldn't there be a police investigation and criminal charges be filed against the appropriate parties?

As I understand it, from a legal perspective, it is technically battery. There was no consent given for the procedure. I hope that the infant and the family recover just compensation for this still-accepted form of genital mutilation and that it encourages hospitals and doctors to be more careful.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I think an apology and losing her bill would be more than adequate compensation.

Here's an interesting issue. The infant cannot consent to any sort of a legal settlement. Should he be able to file suit at age 18? I don't see any reason why not.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I think the millions of men walking around who have been circumcised would not consider this to be true.

It's a fairly harmless cosmetic procedure. The kid isn't harmed, and no life altering damage is done.

If you survey men who have had sex before and after, the consensus is that it was better before. Hopefully this form of genital mutilation will just be deemed illegal, allowing men to make their own decision at age 18.

(It's truly amazing how many people oppose giving other people the freedom to make their own decisions about their lives and their bodies, especially something as intimate and as personal as one's penis. Men have almost no status or rights in our society.)

 

[OCGuy]

If you survey men who have had sex before and after, the consensus is that it was better before. Hopefully this form of genital mutilation will just be deemed illegal, allowing men to make their own decision at age 18.

(It's truly amazing how many people oppose giving other people the freedom to make their own decisions about their lives and their bodies, especially something as intimate and as personal as one's penis. Men have almost no status or rights in our society.)

Good luck with that, anteater.

 

[WHAMPOM]

This case just makes me wonder what else is going on at that hospital! Besides their circumcision agenda, that is. Labotomies, thymus removal, forced sterilization ....

 

[tinker2141]

Good luck with that, anteater.

:thumbsup: Ever watch a porno with teh anteater? Just aint right.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Removing about 50% of the nerve endings in a mans penis is definently mutilation which does affect the individual in a severe way. As a comparison, it would be like cutting off all of a womans labia and the hood covering her clit which would desensitise her clit in the same way that a mans penis gets desensitised when circumcised.

You could also make the same argument for cleanliness, it WOULD be easier for a woman to keep clean without labia and i'm fairly certain that the risk of attracting HIV would be lower too.

So why don't you do that?

Well the answer is easy, it's an archaic religious ritual that the US and Australia have adopted while not following the religion itself, which would be Judaism or Islam.

30% of the worlds male population are circumcised, 70% of those are Muslim, a couple of percents are Jews, the rest are morons who do it for no reason what so ever.

It's a fucking archaic religious ritual with absolutely no benefits that involves mutilating an infants genitals.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

:thumbsup: Ever watch a porno with teh anteater? Just aint right.

So you spend your time watching cocks and thinking about them?

OK.... don't ask don't tell i guess.