More on the Chicago case decision
The article can be viewed without having to register with the Chicago
Sun-Times at:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/109102,circum102406.article
Also, more press:
Judge backs dad, bars boy's circumcision (AP)
By CARLA K. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Tue Oct 24, 5:13 PM ET
CHICAGO - A judge in a case closely watched by those who oppose circumcision
sided Tuesday with a divorced man who did not want his 9-year-old son to
undergo the procedure.
Circuit Judge Jordan Kaplan said that circumcision is "an extraordinary
medical procedure" for a 9-year-old and that the boy can decide for himself
when he turns 18.
The boy's father sued to block the operation in a dispute with his ex-wife.
The couple's 2003 divorce decree gave the father the right to be consulted
before the boy underwent any "extraordinary" non-emergency procedure.
The father said he believed surgical removal of the boy's foreskin could
cause long-term physical and psychological harm. The child's mother wanted
the procedure to prevent recurring infections. She testified that the boy
had suffered five bouts of painful inflammation and had begged her to help
him.
Jewish newborns are routinely circumcised as part of their faith. But
religious beliefs did not figure in the ruling. Neither parent is Jewish.
The Associated Press is not identifying the suburban parents to protect the
boy's privacy.
Most U.S. newborn boys are circumcised. But a growing number of parents are
opting against the surgery. The percentage of male babies circumcised has
fallen from an estimated 90 percent in 1970 to about 60 percent today.
In a 1999 policy statement that was reaffirmed this year, the American
Academy of Pediatrics said there are "potential medical benefits" to
circumcision, including a reduction in risk of urinary tract infections. But
the academy said there is not enough evidence to recommend routine
circumcision of newborns.
---------------- o ----------------
U.S. judge rules 9-year-old need not get circumcised (REUTERS)
12:30pm Wednesday October 25, 2006
CHICAGO - In a decision cheered by foes of routine circumcision for boys, a
judge ruled on Tuesday that a 9-year-old need not be circumcised as his
mother wanted.
A dispute between the boy's divorced parents about whether to circumcise him
escalated into a court case, and Cook County Judge Jordan Kaplan declared in
his ruling that it was unclear if the boy would benefit medically from
having the procedure done.
Witnesses for the boy's mother argued he had suffered infections underneath
his foreskin. The father's expert witnesses said the mother had wrongly
retracted his foreskin in order to clean his penis and had irritated the
area.
In granting the boy's father an injunction blocking the procedure, the judge
said the boy could decide for himself whether to be circumcised when he
turns 18.
The case is sure to fuel arguments for and against male circumcision.
The American Academy of Paediatrics has said it does not recommend routine
circumcision, though it does have some potential medical benefits.
In a statement, the Doctors Opposing Circumcision said the judge's ruling
protected "the boy's legal right to bodily integrity."
"Male circumcision in an irreversible amputation of functional tissue," it
added.
"The ruling opens a very interesting question," said the group's John
Geisheker. "If the benefits of circumcision are not available to a
9-year-old, what does that say about infants?"
At least one study has shown infants that have been circumcised later show a
greater sensitivity to pain, "an infant analog to post-traumatic stress
disorder," Geisheker said.
On the opposing side, one study suggested an uncircumcised penis may be more
prone to becoming infected with HIV.
The practice of circumcising infant males is rare in Europe, while it is
declining but remains common in the United States.
Witnesses for the boy's mother argued he had suffered infections underneath
his foreskin. The father's expert witnesses said the mother had wrongly
retracted his foreskin in order to clean his penis and had irritated the
area.
I called that months ago. I knew his infections were going to be somehow caused by the mother. My guesses were either she was using some kind of soap (laundry of bath) that he was maybe sensitive to or that she was forcibly retracting. How sad for him, no wonder he screamed everytime she touched or came near his penis (reported by her lawyers a few months ago) - if someone was doing the equivilent of tearing MY hymen* everytime they bathed me, I'd scream too.
*During childhood it's fused to the penis the same way the fingernail is fused to the finger bed for the same reasons - protects it againts dirt, bacteria, etc (that's part of why intact boys don't/can't get meatal stenosis as meatal stenosis is directly caused by a lack of foreskin) - it serves the same function/purpose of the hymen. It loosens around puberty obviously, it doesn't stay that way just like the hymen doesn't stay intact after being broken. But what the mom was doing could potentially cause him some issues with scarring.