Judge: mom can't sue over circumcision
Here's a link to the story.
_Dawn Nelson sued Unity Hospital and Dr. Steven Berestka, claiming the doctor removed "the most erogenous tissue" after the boy was born on Jan. 21, 2000 --- without consulting either parent. Nelson and the boy's father, David Nelson, were unhappy with the result.
But the Appeals Court noted in its Tuesday decision that the mother indicated on a prenatal form that the baby should be circumcised._
Thoughts?
If she indicated it on a form, its her own fault.
Uh.. haha. 20/20 hindsight can be a bitch. I second that; if she put it on the form, then tough beans.
Originally Posted By: ArticleAccording to Baer's Web site, he "contributes substantial amounts of time to ending the barbaric practice of routine infant male circumcision worldwide, insuring genital integrity for all citizens of the world."This seems to strike a wrong note with me. Maybe because I'm a "routine infant male circumcision" and I like it. Heh. I dunno, I think that I would more than likely have my own kid done, too.
with the paperwork in place, it's pretty much a moot point. Although, I know of a few victims of routine circumcision. Never requested, never approved, just done per status quo.I beleive the practise is no longer allowed in Canada. It's only done by specific, signed consent. When my son was born though, I was scared shitless that he'd be wisked off and hacked before I knew what was happening. Now THAT would have eneded up in a law suit... not to metion a lot of black eyes and bloody noses
What "thoughts" are there? She checked off the form. Too late. Tough cookies.
Ignorance is no excuse. Didn't read the article but if she thought erogenous tissue and foreskin were two different things...well...hell, sucks to be her. I guess she could sue to have them put it back?? Or was she seeking monetary reimbursement?? I guess I'll have to read the article when I have more time.
