Judge rules boy's circumcision not medically necessary

Filed under: Your Pregnancy, Divorce & Custody, Health & Safety: Babies, Development/Milestones: Babies

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.

ReaderComments (Page 1 of 1)

FollowUs

Flickr RSS

TheTalkies

AskAdviceMama

AdviceMama Says:
Start by teaching him that it is safe to do so.