Judge rules boy's circumcision not medically necessary
Categories: Pregnancy & birth, Divorce & custody, Health & safety, Development
A decision has come down in an important Illinois case that has been carefully watched by both sides of the circumcision debate, and a judge has issued a written opinion stating that a 9-year-old boy need not be circumcised for medial reasons as asserted by his mother. The mother has sole custody, but her 2003 parenting agreement gave her ex-husband (the boy's father) a say in non-emergency medical decisions. That fact may make this different from other situations, but intactivists are celebrating this case as a major victory for their cause. As the only legal challenge to the medical necessity of circumcision to reach this level in any American court, all other judges who consider the issue will look to this decision for guidance. Circuit Judge Jordan Kaplan wrote, "this court finds that the medical evidence as provided by the testimony of the expert witnesses ... is inconclusive as to the medical benefits or non-benefits of circumcision as it relates to the 9-year-old child. . . the injury to the child as a result of an unnecessary circumcision would be irreversible," adding that his order would remain in effect until the boy turns 18 and can decide for himself whether or not he wants to undergo the procedure. The boy had issued a written statement to the court that he did not want to be circumcised.
This case will almost certainly set up the next challenge: spouses who will choose to litigate such a dispute when the child is a newborn.
Recent Posts
- The Dingo's Got My Baby Name! (7/06/2009)
- Weekend Fun and Games (7/03/2009)
- Kids and Extracurriculars - When Do You Let Them Quit? (7/03/2009)
- Twitter Follow Friday on ParentDish! (7/03/2009)
- Lush Lashes (7/03/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Erin 10-26-2006 @ 1:02PM
Wonder if vaccinations will be the next issue...?
Reply
ana 10-26-2006 @ 3:42PM
That is great news! If you go back and look at the history of circ in this country (non-religious circ)you will see that both removing the foreskin and removing the clitoris were both recommended for all babies in the early 1900`s. To stop masturbation of course. Then, only removing the foreskin caught on and every decade a new reason was given to continue this unnecessary, painful & damaging surgery. (It totally violates the Hippocratic Oath of "First,do no harm".)
Now, we know there really is no medical reason at all to circ, studies saying otherwise have all been disproven. The decision to circ is based solely on emotions in the US and the decision to leave the boy alone is based on reason and common sense. Just think, if removing the clitoris had caught on, all these moms who circed their sons only to loook like their dads would be like, " I want my daughter to look like me!" Crazy.
Reply
kathy howard 10-30-2006 @ 10:19PM
So relieved to keep reading how the younger smarter generation "get it" so quickly on the circumcision insanity. Most of us who came from the 'dark ages' instinctively knew something was wierd about it and questioned it but were overcome with medical power and no-internet advantage. Bravo to all the young people who embrace this knowledge and are not afraid to challenge the old-fashioned crap. Time to get 'with it', circumcision is out dated, and over - thank god. Support the MGM bill.
Reply