MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault
of boys
A New Area of Liability for Physicians, Hospitals
and Parents
Richard W. Morris LL.B., Ph.D
Attorney-at-law
Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or slits the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem. So says the California Civil Code.
There are of course, situations in which consent eliminates criminality from acts which would otherwise constitute assault, battery, or even mayhem, such as a consent for a surgical procedure which is for the benefit of the patient.
Such consent by the individual, let alone the parent, would be invalid for the slitting of the tongue, nose, ear, or lip if such an act were not for the benefit of the patient. Certainly if the patient were not in a position to consent, the act would be mayhem at worst and battery at best. In any case, a crime.
Can you imagine a doctor's defense to the charge of mayhem by cutting a slit in the nose of a newborn child saying that it would keep the nose cleaner? Or slicing the ear saying that Q-tips would fit better? No time would be lost in suing the doctor.
How, then, does the picture change when, a day or so after birth a doctor takes the six pound bundle of humanity into a dark room (where the baby's screams cannot be heard by the parents), straps the little guy's legs and arms apart in a spread eagle position on a torture board called circumstraint, uses no anesthetic, picks up a scalpel and begins the only out-and out act of torture performed by American physicians?
Let us review what is about to be unmercifully attacked. The penis terminates (on the end not attached to the body) in a conical fleshy formation called the glans. The skin covering the penis is prolonged forward in a loose fold. This covers the glans and has an inner lining of the character of a mucous membrane. The prolonged portion of skin with its lining is called the prepuce or foreskin. This is the target.
With the penis (pardon me for using the word; I mean to say dilly whacker) in one hand and a scalpel in the other, the torturer, masquerading as physician, slits vertically along the foreskin. The blade cuts ; the blood spurts. The victim's cortisone level goes up in response to the pain. The pain is so intense that the sleep/wake patterns are altered for several days. But the torture has only begun. (The pain is that which you would feel from slitting the membrane which connects your tongue to the floor of your mouth.) The foreskin lies bleeding, cut in half.
The initial wound has been made to the previously healthy and uninjured foreskin. A circular cap is then placed tightly over the end of the penis, like a condom. This is to protect the glans so a mistake will not cut "too much" and allows a "clean" slice of the knife to remove the foreskin. The cap is removed with the foreskin, leaving only the mutilated stump. The mayhem is complete.
For the doctor it is quick, painless and profitable. And, until now, safe from malpractice claims. Only the victim's crying, a little blood and the unstrapping of the victim from the rack remains to be done. But is the doctor still safe from suit? Or is the hospital ? Or even the parents who consented?
Older primitive tribes circumcised females. This was done at puberty by cutting off the labia minora. How long would Gloria Steinem stand for this? Or California Chief Justice Rose Bird? How long would it take NOW to march on Washington or file a class action suit against all doctors, hospitals and parents?
Somehow what is horrible to do to a female is a matter of course to do to a male. What is child abuse to a girl is the "thing to do" to a boy. Why is there no uprising or march on Washington? Could it be that they don't have the balls to protect their cock? Every excuse for this barbaric practice has been proven false. There is no valid medical reason for circumcision. Only the U.S. and Israel do this as a matter of course. No other civilized nation in the world does it without medical justification in specific cases. If it were not an "unthinking habit", parents and doctors both would shrink in horror from circumcision. If there is no medical reason for the procedure, it is mayhem.
Not only is there no medical justification, there is no religious justification. As long ago as 1869, the father of modern Judaism in America, Isaac M. Wise, at the rabbinical conference in Philadelphia, proposed the abolition of circumcision on the ground that it is a "measure of extreme cruelty when performed upon adults." This proposal was actually adopted by the reformed rabbis of America at the New York conference in 1892.
If it is "extreme cruelty" for an adult, what sort of a monster would inflict such a torture on a helpless infant? Circumcision is the survival of one of the insanities of religion based upon ignorance and superstition of primitive man.
What is the liability today of a doctor who does circumcision? On the civil side (that is more than the malpractice area) it would appear that each circumciser faces a threat of a lawsuit until one or two years after the victim reaches the age of 18 years. What is the dollar amount of the liability? Who knows. This is a case where an attorney could present all of the details of taking the child to a room (kidnapping), the restraint (false imprisonment), the blood and gore of the operation (assault, battery, and mayhem) and show it to be intentional tort, not professional negligence. These acts may well be outside the scope of proper professional activity. If so, the $250, 000 limitation of damages imposed by the California Civil Code Section 3333.2 may not apply and malpractice insurance may not cover the liability. Intentional torts permit punitive damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish. (By the way, insurance policies do not cover punitive damages.)
What are the actual damages? This tough question is answered by the jury. Picture this, if you will: The attorney says to the jury, "For a thousand dollars you might even let someone cut you superficially with a knife. How much, gentlemen of the jury, would you charge to have your dillywacker maimed?
Once the question is answered with a dollar sign, the next question is how many dollars will it take to teach that doctor a lesson (punitive damages) so that doctor doesn't do it again?
"Keep in mind," the attorney says to the jury, "this doctor and others have been making 250 million dollars each and every year doing this unnecessary and cruel act. Do not let them profit by their wrong doing. Make them pay more than they earn and they will stop. Teach them a lesson they will never forget."
And who is most guilty? Those who know better but still cut. Do you hear me OBs? The one who bears the greatest guilt of all is the one who urges parents not to circumcise, and yet will do it for dollars. Mayhem for money.
Criminally, the circumciser is guilty of assault, battery, kidnapping, false imprisonment, mayhem and child abuse. The District Attorney should as routinely prosecute these cases as it does child beating.
What liability does the hospital incur for providing (for a fee) the torture chamber, the rack and the knife? A lot. Suffice to say that the hospital should be included as a party defendant when suing the doctor.
What liability do the parents incur for consenting to this? The parents are charged with the duty of protecting their children. When they violate this duty, they must be sued. (There is no longer a parent-child immunity.) If the parents affirmatively request that someone practicing medicine with the mentality of a savage maim the child, the child has an additional target defendant : Mom and Dad.
As children come to age and become aware of this, we should see many suits filed against those who took part in the bit of butchery. Parents who consented based upon the advice of their physician might now reconsider, have themselves appointed as "Guardian ad Litem" , and seek to recover their sons the dollar value of the horror the innocent children suffered. The doctors and hospitals just might get financially circumcised.
Richard Morris practiced law in California and the US Federal Courts when this article was written. It has been reprinted from : "Professionals speak out ..."
http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/
The final product of a bloody mutilation. Most protective and erogenous tissues (which provides the greatest amount of sensation in intact males) has been destroyed leaving the victim with a stump to heal.
These males will live their entire lives with a very delicate and sensitive part of his body permanently exposed. They will never enjoy the full sensation provided in the foreskin or the pleasure of the foreskin. It is not appearance which fathers envy - but rather a feeling of deprivation of an important part of their body which they will never experience or enjoy - which is the main reason for circumcising their sons. As a result of envy, sons must not be permitted to retain a part of their body which the father himself was denied.
It is ironic that the reason " to look like the father or peers" is never used to discourage circumcision. Male victims of sexual assault should protect their sons from this dehumanizing practice not encourage it. Males have the same right to an intact body as females! If not, then why not?
UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment."
"Fear, pain, crippling, disfigurement and humiliation are the classic ways to break the human spirit - Circumcision includes them all."
Webmaster's Note
There is a great deal of similarity in Criminal and Civil Laws of the USA and Canada. In Canada there is no statue of limitation with regards to criminal acts. That being the situation, victims of unwanted circumcision may launch criminal action any time in their lives.
If you are victim of unwanted circumcision and would like to pursue legal action please refer to the following web site which provides information on "Bringing Charges Against Your Circumcisers".
http://www.intact.ca/criminal.htm
