You want to cut what off?!?!

Well most people that know me know that I would never circumcise my sons (if I had any) unless there was a legitimate reason. I believe circumcision is a personal decision that all parents make, much like whether or not to vaccinate. However, if I were to choose sides in the circumcision debate, I would choose the non-circ'd side. So, I thought this story was interesting. A judge ruled that circumcism is not a necessary procedure. This ruling occurred concerning a case where a mother wanted her son circumcised, but the father did not. Since the father had say in all non-emergency medical decisions, and since circumcism is not a medical emergency, the judge ruled in favor of the father. I do believe this is the first court ruling that has stated circumcism is medically unnecessary.

Judge rules boy's circumcision not medically necessary - Blogging Baby

Judge rules boy's circumcision not medically necessary

Posted Oct 26th 2006 9:30AM by J.D. Griffioen
Filed under: Child Development, Health and Safety, Lifestyle, Pregnancy and Birth, Divorce

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.