There are certain issues in parenting and in life that have become hot-button topics. Among them are vaccination, breastfeeding, and circumcision. Of those, it's circumcision that gets people the most heated. People have tried to ban it and legislate it and stop it in any way they can. And now one 28-year-old man in South Dakota is suing the hospital he says "robbed him of his prowess" as a newborn.
Let's get serious. He was circumcised as a newborn 28 years ago when, to the best of everyone's knowledge, circumcision WAS healthier and better for kids. The man (who is now in prison, by the way) claims the hospital misled his mother and tricked her into the circumcision.
It's hard to believe this case for so many reasons.
There are still many, many people in the medical community who believe circumcision is better and healthier. Most pediatricians will not take a stand either way since in many cultures, circumcision is the norm and expected.
Still, take it beyond circumcision. Look at any medical procedure performed on a child. Parents are charged with educating themselves and making the best possible decision for their children.
If anyone were going to be sued, it ought to be this man's mother. But then what? Can every child who ever had their tonsils out sue to get them back? There is no PROOF that uncircumcised men have better sex.
Sure, some will try to claim there is, but there is just no way to prove it. Anecdotally, I know many women who have said they would refuse sex with an uncircumcised male, so you know, there's that, too. And quite frankly, that "science" is just as relevant as that which belongs to the anti-circumcision brigade.
This isn't just about circumcision, though. This is about a medical decision that was made by a consenting adult for her newborn son. If this man were to win the $1,000 in compensatory and punitive damages he seeks, he will set a new bar and open the door for many other lawsuits like it.
Now can anyone sue the hospital that takes their appendix or gallbladder or any other kind of surgery that may later be deemed "medically unnecessary"?
It's a dangerous precedent and, while this man has no lawyer and is only seeking $1,000, it may not be the last we see of this kind of thing.
Do you think he should be able to sue?
Image via morrissey/Flickr