Court rules that mom can't sue over circumcision

Filed under: Newborns, Places To Go, Health & Safety: Babies, Expert Advice: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Nutrition: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Research Reveals: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Gear Guides: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Gear Guides: Babies, Activities: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Behavior: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Development: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Health & Safety: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Expert Advice: Babies, Toddlers Preschoolers, Research Reveals: Babies, Baby-sitting, Feeding & Sleeping, Day Care & Education, Development/Milestones: Babies

I've never had a boy child, so the whole question of whether or not to circumcise is something I've never had to deal with. For that, I am thankful because it seems like a rather difficult decision to have to make. But from what I understand, the circumcision decision is usually made well before the child is born and routinely done before the baby leaves the hospital.

But one mother in Minnesota claims the procedure was done on her newborn son without her consent and that it was done badly. Dawn Nelson filed a lawsuit, claiming that Dr. Steven Berestka of Unity Hospital removed "the most erogenous tissue" from her son's penis after he was born in January, 2001. Unfortunately, she did indicate on a prenatal form check-box that her baby should be circumcised and the lawsuit was therefore rejected by the the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Her lawyer, Zenas Baer, says that checking a box on a form before the child is even born isn't enough. "Isn't the mom allowed to change her mind?" he asks.

Another surgeon has since "performed a revision for cosmetic purposes" and Baer says the parents plan to appeal the ruling. In the meantime, Baer is out spreading the word against what he calls "the barbaric practice of routine infant male circumcision worldwide."

ReaderComments (Page 1 of 1)


Flickr RSS



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