• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

South Miami hospital sued for accidental circumcision on newborn

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Thump553 said:
The lawyer in the article was referring to the civil tort known as battery. That is different than the crime. In civil law a battery is essentially an unconsented touching without privilege.

Probably a clear case of liability here-assuming no signed consent by either parent. The only real question is the amount of damages.

Medical people would know better than I, but in these days of reattaching fingers and thumbs, couldn't this be fixed by a bit of plastic surgery?
Click to expand...
Ya I am sure thats what the family wants. I am sure the Delgado's want to lose the free lunch they have just been served. They gave a piece of for skin they want a pound of flesh in return.
 
It's not automatic, nor is it mutilation. If the kids penis was rendered "unusable" for either urination or future procreation, then the term mutilation would apply. A properly performed circumcision does not affect the function of the penis, keeps things more hygienic, actually makes the owner slightly less vulnerable to contracting bacteria via sex, rules out phimosis and the admittedly rare penile cancer.

I'm tired of hearing the 'well take a shower!' retort. Most women will tell you that is in fact not the miracle cure all for the troublesome upkeep of a moist orifice. I'm not saying uncircumcised men basically have vaginas, but they are susceptible to contracting yeast infections from their partners.

When a young girl in sub-Saharan Africa gets her clit snipped off with a pair of scissors, that's mutilation. It serves no other purpose but to reassure her future pissant husband that by feeling little enjoyment from the act of sex, she'll not be tempted to look for action elsewhere. Huge difference from a male having a circumcision which is essentially cosmetic, and doesn't interfere with recreational sex or procreation. So it's easier to wank off with an anteater. Um, great? Given how many females I've heard opine on the subject, that probably comes in handy (no pun intended).


Regarding the OP, this sounds like an unfortunate mistake on the part of the hospital, and about some parents looking to cash in on a firebrand issue. Funny that they maintain it's irreversible, I just saw a bizarre looking device online awhile ago that does exactly that, reverses circumcisions.
 
Last edited:
her209 said:
They are equivalent in that they are done accidentally and without your knowledge/consent.
Click to expand...

So in that way, if I come up and flick your arm accidentally and without your knowledge/consent, then arm flicking = amputation = circumcision.
 
kage69 said:
It's not automatic, nor is it mutilation. If the kids penis was rendered "unusable" for either urination or future procreation, then the term mutilation would apply. A properly performed circumcision does not affect the function of the penis, keeps things more hygienic, actually makes the owner slightly less vulnerable to contracting bacteria via sex, rules out phimosis and the admittedly rare penile cancer.

I'm tired of hearing the 'well take a shower!' retort. Most women will tell you that is in fact not the miracle cure all for the troublesome upkeep of a moist orifice. I'm not saying uncircumcised men basically have vaginas, but they are susceptible to contracting yeast infections from their partners.

When a young girl in sub-Saharan Africa gets her clit snipped off with a pair of scissors, that's mutilation. It serves no other purpose but to reassure her future pissant husband that by feeling little enjoyment from the act of sex, she'll not be tempted to look for action elsewhere. Huge difference from a male having a circumcision which is essentially cosmetic, and doesn't interfere with recreational sex or procreation. So it's easier to wank off with an anteater. Um, great? Given how many females I've heard opine on the subject, that probably comes in handy (no pun intended).

Regarding the OP, this sounds like an unfortunate mistake on the part of the hospital, and about some parents looking to cash in on a firebrand issue. Funny that they maintain it's irreversible, I just saw a bizarre looking device online awhile ago that does exactly that, reverses circumcisions.
Click to expand...
Doctors should be allowed to make mistakes so long as those mistakes have health benefits?

😀
 
Double Trouble said:
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.....
Click to expand...

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

- wolf
 
Assault and battery are just the old civil common law grounds people sued under for medical malpractice. This is not going to be a criminal case.

This is one of those cases where patients should get something. Maybe not a million bucks but something.
 
trollface.jpg
USA is a barbarian country where genital mutilation is practiced. Just like Somalia where they cut the clitoris to avoid pleasure and masturbation.
/troll

Anyway those guys at the hospital will have to pay the same amount of money they would pay to someone who had any other non-impairing body part removed.
Like a piece of the ear or something.
It's not the same as leg amputation or balls removal anyway, and the assault charge will go nowhere, it's just a lawyer move, they'll get the money because of medical mistake.
 
Hospital going to settle, kid is going to get college paid for from birth.
It's very simple, don't have parental consent, don't cut the peepee.
 
Sigh...

I didn't check when it was added but the wiki article on amputation includes a section on genital modification.. If one of you fools added it /shame.

Though at any rate.. amputation is the act of removing an extremity.. this is an amputation... it is just not a very major one.

That being said, there is so much BS in this thread... In my 6 years working at the local pool I never once heard of the kids ripping on another based on something like this. I heard on them ripping on their peers for about everything else.. but this certainly didn't save the child from ridicule. He will have plenty of opportunity to be made fun of and make fun of. Also, the health benefits are very debatable. Frankly I consider this purely cosmetic, but there certainly might be something to some of the claims.

While I find circumcision stupid and bordering on mutilation (so many nerve endings to cut away 🙁 ), get it done to your kids if you want and it should not be illegal or anything (though I still have the right to parents wanting this the same look I give those who put hoop ear rings in their 2 year old). But if this family didn't want it they are entitled to compensation (though perhaps not nearly a million dollars). I'm sure there is a simple enough to find precedent for non key anatomy being removed by mistake that they can look at for a rather exact damage claim. Someone must have gotten an unwanted piercing before right?
 
Last edited:
kage69 said:
It's not automatic, nor is it mutilation. If the kids penis was rendered "unusable" for either urination or future procreation, then the term mutilation would apply. A properly performed circumcision does not affect the function of the penis, keeps things more hygienic, actually makes the owner slightly less vulnerable to contracting bacteria via sex, rules out phimosis and the admittedly rare penile cancer.

I'm tired of hearing the 'well take a shower!' retort. Most women will tell you that is in fact not the miracle cure all for the troublesome upkeep of a moist orifice. I'm not saying uncircumcised men basically have vaginas, but they are susceptible to contracting yeast infections from their partners.

When a young girl in sub-Saharan Africa gets her clit snipped off with a pair of scissors, that's mutilation. It serves no other purpose but to reassure her future pissant husband that by feeling little enjoyment from the act of sex, she'll not be tempted to look for action elsewhere. Huge difference from a male having a circumcision which is essentially cosmetic, and doesn't interfere with recreational sex or procreation. So it's easier to wank off with an anteater. Um, great? Given how many females I've heard opine on the subject, that probably comes in handy (no pun intended).


Regarding the OP, this sounds like an unfortunate mistake on the part of the hospital, and about some parents looking to cash in on a firebrand issue. Funny that they maintain it's irreversible, I just saw a bizarre looking device online awhile ago that does exactly that, reverses circumcisions.
Click to expand...
This has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever read.
 
Best of both worlds here for the kid - cleaner junk and money in the bank. I bet her lawyer's eyes turned green and lit up like christmas trees when this woman walked into his office.

However I don't get the assault and battery charge...shouldn't it be malpractice?
 
kage69 said:
It's not automatic, nor is it mutilation. If the kids penis was rendered "unusable" for either urination or future procreation, then the term mutilation would apply. A properly performed circumcision does not affect the function of the penis, keeps things more hygienic, actually makes the owner slightly less vulnerable to contracting bacteria via sex, rules out phimosis and the admittedly rare penile cancer.

I'm tired of hearing the 'well take a shower!' retort. Most women will tell you that is in fact not the miracle cure all for the troublesome upkeep of a moist orifice. I'm not saying uncircumcised men basically have vaginas, but they are susceptible to contracting yeast infections from their partners.

When a young girl in sub-Saharan Africa gets her clit snipped off with a pair of scissors, that's mutilation. It serves no other purpose but to reassure her future pissant husband that by feeling little enjoyment from the act of sex, she'll not be tempted to look for action elsewhere. Huge difference from a male having a circumcision which is essentially cosmetic, and doesn't interfere with recreational sex or procreation. So it's easier to wank off with an anteater. Um, great? Given how many females I've heard opine on the subject, that probably comes in handy (no pun intended).


Regarding the OP, this sounds like an unfortunate mistake on the part of the hospital, and about some parents looking to cash in on a firebrand issue. Funny that they maintain it's irreversible, I just saw a bizarre looking device online awhile ago that does exactly that, reverses circumcisions.
Click to expand...

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.
 
It is cleaner to be circumsized but that doesnt mean it should be required, and luckily it isnt. Besides that the parents didnt want it...So they are owed something here.

1 million dollars ? No, but 200k for the kid in a private trust fund that only HE can use once he is 18 would be a good compromise. The parents themselves really should not get the money since they would just spend in on themselves.
 
Throckmorton said:
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.
Click to expand...

Losing a bit of foreskin is not like cutting off a woman's clit.
 
tinker2141 said:
It still slings yogurt and can drive a nail when excited. Pretty sure when you do the same to a women they just lay there like a sack of wet farts.
Click to expand...

You can still "drive a nail" and "sling yogurt" into a woman with no clitoris, she can experience an orgasm, and she can use that yogurt to fertilize an egg and create a baby.

Face it-- the only difference between clitoris removal and foreskin removal is that our culture considers one mutilation to be normal but not the other.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top