Schmidt v. Niznik - Revision history

WikiModEn2: Add links in SEEALSO section.

2024-05-06T15:12:34Z

Add links in SEEALSO section.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:12, 6 May 2024
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|date=2014		\|date=2014
	\|accessdate=2020-05-04		\|accessdate=2020-05-04
	}}</ref> Her new husband thought that his step-son should be circumcised so that he would match his circumcised step-brother. The 31-year-old Slovakian-born mother,<ref name="peres0217">{{REFnews		}}</ref> Her new husband thought that his step-son should be [[circumcised]] so that he would match his circumcised step-brother. The 31-year-old Slovakian-born mother,<ref name="peres0217">{{REFnews
	\|title=Circumcision decision delayed by court		\|title=Circumcision decision delayed by court
	\|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagotribune2006-02-17/		\|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagotribune2006-02-17/
Line 23:		Line 23:
	\|accessdate=2020-5-07		\|accessdate=2020-5-07
	\|quote=		\|quote=
	}}</ref> now known as Mrs. Rovin, secretly scheduled a non-therapeutic circumcision for her son to please her new husband in violation of the divorce decree.<ref name="arcnews2006">{{REFweb		}}</ref> now known as Mrs. Rovin, secretly scheduled a non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] for her son to please her new husband in violation of the divorce decree.<ref name="arcnews2006">{{REFweb
	\|url=https://www.arclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/Newsletter-5-2.pdf		\|url=https://www.arclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/Newsletter-5-2.pdf
	\|title=ARC Newsletter		\|title=ARC Newsletter
Line 37:		Line 37:
	}}</ref>		}}</ref>

	Mr. Niznick only found out about the circumcision a few days before it was to occur in February 2006 when his son told him during a scheduled visitation that he was to have surgery on his penis.<ref name="appendixone"/>		Mr. Niznick only found out about the circumcision a few days before it was to occur in February 2006 when his son told him during a scheduled visitation that he was to have surgery on his [[penis]].<ref name="appendixone"/>

	==Proceedings==		==Proceedings==

	Mr. Niznik retained renowned circumcision lawyer [[David J. Llewellyn]] of Atlanta, Georgia to represent him and they filed suit in the [http://www.cookcountycourt.org/ Circuit Court of Cook County], Illinois. Mr. Llewellyn was supported by local counsel Lake, Toback & D'Arco. The Polish-born father, a 49-year-old building manager from Arlington Heights, immediately asked Judge Jordan Kaplan to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the circumcision of his son, pending a trial, which was granted.<ref name="peres0217" /><ref name="arcnews2006" />		Mr. Niznik retained renowned circumcision lawyer [[David J. Llewellyn]] of Atlanta, Georgia to represent him and they filed suit in the [http://www.cookcountycourt.org/ Circuit Court of Cook County], Illinois. Mr. Llewellyn was supported by local counsel Lake, Toback & D'Arco. The Polish-born father, a 49-year-old building manager from Arlington Heights, immediately asked Judge Jordan Kaplan to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the [[circumcision]] of his son, pending a trial, which was granted.<ref name="peres0217" /><ref name="arcnews2006" />

	Drs. [[Robert S. Van Howe\|Van Howe]] and Gibbon served as expert witnesses for the father, while Drs. Hatch and Goldstein served as expert witnesses for the mother, a 31-year-old homemaker from Northbrook, represented by [http://tracyrizzo.com/ Tracy Rizzo].<ref name="arcnews2006"/><ref name="appendixone"/><ref name="peres2006">{{REFnews		Drs. [[Robert S. Van Howe\|Van Howe]] and Gibbon served as expert witnesses for the father, while Drs. Hatch and Goldstein served as expert witnesses for the mother, a 31-year-old homemaker from Northbrook, represented by [http://tracyrizzo.com/ Tracy Rizzo].<ref name="arcnews2006"/><ref name="appendixone"/><ref name="peres2006">{{REFnews
Line 58:		Line 58:
	She claimed that the boy had [[balanitis]] which she alleged would make his [[circumcision]] a necessary medical treatment, however it was shown that the boy had been swimming in heavily clorinated swimming pools, which caused the irritation. The boy did not have balanitis, so he did not need a circumcision. Even if he did have balanitis, there is more conservative treatment available than radical, destructive circumcision, it was shown.<ref name="appendixone"/>		She claimed that the boy had [[balanitis]] which she alleged would make his [[circumcision]] a necessary medical treatment, however it was shown that the boy had been swimming in heavily clorinated swimming pools, which caused the irritation. The boy did not have balanitis, so he did not need a circumcision. Even if he did have balanitis, there is more conservative treatment available than radical, destructive circumcision, it was shown.<ref name="appendixone"/>

	Dr. [[Robert S. Van Howe\|Van Howe]] testified the boy the boy had a "normal, non-diseased foreskin" and Dr. Hatch also affirmed the boy had a "normal non-diseased foreskin".<ref name="appendixone"/>		Dr. [[Robert S. Van Howe\|Van Howe]] testified the boy the boy had a "normal, non-diseased [[foreskin]]" and Dr. Hatch also affirmed the boy had a "normal non-diseased foreskin".<ref name="appendixone"/>

	It was brought out that circumcision risks serious psychological damage.<ref name="appendixone"/>		It was brought out that circumcision risks serious psychological damage.<ref name="appendixone"/>

	Judge Kaplan ruled on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 that the now nine-year-old boy should not be circumcised. In his ruling, he described circumcision as "''an extraordinary medical procedure as it relates to a nine-year-old child''". He issued an injunction to block the procedure and to protect the boy from circumcision until he turns 18 and can decide for himself.<ref name="johnson2006">{{REFnews		Judge Kaplan ruled on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 that the now nine-year-old boy should not be [[circumcised]]. In his ruling, he described circumcision as "''an extraordinary medical procedure as it relates to a nine-year-old child''". He issued an injunction to block the procedure and to protect the boy from [[circumcision]] until he turns 18 and can decide for himself.<ref name="johnson2006">{{REFnews
	\|title=Judge takes father's side in circumcision feud		\|title=Judge takes father's side in circumcision feud
	\|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagosun-times2006-10-24/		\|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagosun-times2006-10-24/
Line 103:		Line 103:

	Jonathan Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to [[genital autonomy]] — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>		Jonathan Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to [[genital autonomy]] — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>
			{{SEEALSO}}
			* [[Boldt v. Boldt]]
			* [[Cologne circumcision court judgment]]
			* [[Re B and G (children) (No 2) EWFC 3]]
			* [[Re L and B (CHILDREN)]]
			* [[Human rights]]
			* [[United States of America]]
	{{REF}}		{{REF}}

WikiAdmin: adjust DOC link

2022-06-16T08:42:33Z

adjust DOC link

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:42, 16 June 2022
Line 98:		Line 98:

	==Afterword==		==Afterword==

	The decision of the trial judge was not appealed to a higher court so the decision of the trial court stands.<ref name="peres1024" />		The decision of the trial judge was not appealed to a higher court so the decision of the trial court stands.<ref name="peres1024" />

	[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)~~\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision~~]] (2006) commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)~~\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision~~]], later cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf\| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.		[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]] (2006) commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006"/> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]], later cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf\| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.

	Jonathan Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to [[genital autonomy]] — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>		Jonathan Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to [[genital autonomy]] — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>

	{{REF}}		{{REF}}



	[[Category:USA]]		[[Category:USA]]
	[[Category:'... v. ...']]		[[Category:'... v. ...']]
	[[Category:Litigation over circumcision]]		[[Category:Litigation over circumcision]]

WikiAdmin: wikify Robert S. Van Howe

2022-01-14T15:54:17Z

wikify Robert S. Van Howe

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:54, 14 January 2022
Line 58:		Line 58:
	She claimed that the boy had [[balanitis]] which she alleged would make his [[circumcision]] a necessary medical treatment, however it was shown that the boy had been swimming in heavily clorinated swimming pools, which caused the irritation. The boy did not have balanitis, so he did not need a circumcision. Even if he did have balanitis, there is more conservative treatment available than radical, destructive circumcision, it was shown.<ref name="appendixone"/>		She claimed that the boy had [[balanitis]] which she alleged would make his [[circumcision]] a necessary medical treatment, however it was shown that the boy had been swimming in heavily clorinated swimming pools, which caused the irritation. The boy did not have balanitis, so he did not need a circumcision. Even if he did have balanitis, there is more conservative treatment available than radical, destructive circumcision, it was shown.<ref name="appendixone"/>

	Dr. Van Howe testified the boy the boy had a "normal, non-diseased foreskin" and Dr. Hatch also affirmed the boy had a "normal non-diseased foreskin".<ref name="appendixone"/>		Dr. [[Robert S. Van Howe\|Van Howe]] testified the boy the boy had a "normal, non-diseased foreskin" and Dr. Hatch also affirmed the boy had a "normal non-diseased foreskin".<ref name="appendixone"/>

	It was brought out that circumcision risks serious psychological damage.<ref name="appendixone"/>		It was brought out that circumcision risks serious psychological damage.<ref name="appendixone"/>

WikiAdmin: wikify genital autonomy

2021-12-21T12:52:59Z

wikify genital autonomy

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:52, 21 December 2021
Line 103:		Line 103:
	[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] (2006) commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], later cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf\| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.		[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] (2006) commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], later cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf\| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.

	Jonathan Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to genital autonomy — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>		Jonathan Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to [[genital autonomy]] — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>

	{{REF}}		{{REF}}

WikiModEn2: Add category.

2020-05-08T01:08:22Z

Add category.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:08, 8 May 2020
Line 107:		Line 107:
	{{REF}}		{{REF}}



			[[Category:USA]]
	[[Category:'... v. ...']]		[[Category:'... v. ...']]
	[[Category:~~USA~~]]		[[Category:Litigation over circumcision]]

WikiModEn2: Revise footnotes.

2020-05-07T11:14:31Z

Revise footnotes.

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
   |date=2006-02-17
   |accessdate=2020-5-07
   |quote=
 }}</ref> now known as Mrs. Rovin, secretly scheduled a non-therapeutic circumcision for her son to please her new husband in violation of the divorce decree.<ref name="arcnews2006">{{REFweb
@@ Line 73: / Line 62: @@
 It was brought out that circumcision risks serious psychological damage.<ref name="appendixone"/>
-Judge Kaplan ruled on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 that the now nine-year-old boy should not be circumcised. In his ruling, he described circumcision as "''an extraordinary medical procedure as it relates to a nine-year-old child''". He issued an injunction to block the procedure and to protect the boy from circumcision until he turns 18 and can decide for himself.<ref name="johnson2006"/><ref name="reuters2006">{{REFnews
+Judge Kaplan ruled on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 that the now nine-year-old boy should not be circumcised. In his ruling, he described circumcision as "''an extraordinary medical procedure as it relates to a nine-year-old child''". He issued an injunction to block the procedure and to protect the boy from circumcision until he turns 18 and can decide for himself.<ref name="johnson2006">{{REFnews
   |title=Judge rules 9-year-old need not get circumcised.
   |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/reuters2006-10-25/

WikiModEn2: /* Afterword */ Revise text.

2020-05-07T11:08:20Z

Afterword: Revise text.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:08, 7 May 2020
Line 101:		Line 101:
	The decision of the trial judge was not appealed to a higher court so the decision of the trial court stands.<ref name="peres1024" />		The decision of the trial judge was not appealed to a higher court so the decision of the trial court stands.<ref name="peres1024" />

	[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] (2006) ~~later~~ commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf\| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.		[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] (2006) commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], later cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf\| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.

	Jonathan Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to genital autonomy — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>		Jonathan Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to genital autonomy — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>

WikiModEn2: Improve references, Remove Construction Zone template.

2020-05-07T11:05:35Z

Improve references, Remove Construction Zone template.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:05, 7 May 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{Construction Site}}~~
	'''{{FULLPAGENAME}}''', Cook County Illinois, NO. 00 D 18272 (2006) is a court case about the proposed circumcision of an eight-year-old boy in Chicago.		'''{{FULLPAGENAME}}''', Cook County Illinois, NO. 00 D 18272 (2006) is a court case about the proposed circumcision of an eight-year-old boy in Chicago.

Line 13:		Line 12:
	\|date=2014		\|date=2014
	\|accessdate=2020-05-04		\|accessdate=2020-05-04
	}}</ref> Her new husband thought that his step-son should be circumcised so that he would match his circumcised step-brother. The 31-year-old Slovakian-born mother,<ref name="johnson2006">{{REFnews		}}</ref> Her new husband thought that his step-son should be circumcised so that he would match his circumcised step-brother. The 31-year-old Slovakian-born mother,<ref name="peres0217">{{REFnews
			\|title=Circumcision decision delayed by court
			\|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagotribune2006-02-17/
			\|last=Peres
			\|first=Judy
			\|coauthors=
			\|publisher=Chicago Tribune
			\|website=
			\|date=2006-02-17
			\|accessdate=2020-5-07
			\|quote=
			}}</ref><ref name="johnson2006">{{REFnews
	\|title=Judge takes father's side in circumcision feud		\|title=Judge takes father's side in circumcision feud
	\|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagosun-times2006-10-24/		\|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagosun-times2006-10-24/
Line 27:		Line 37:
	\|url=https://www.arclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/Newsletter-5-2.pdf		\|url=https://www.arclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/Newsletter-5-2.pdf
	\|title=ARC Newsletter		\|title=ARC Newsletter
	\|last=		\|last=Svoboda
	\|first=		\|first=J. Steven
	\|accessdate=2020-05-03		\|accessdate=2020-05-03
	}}</ref><ref name="appendixone">{{REFweb		}}</ref><ref name="appendixone">{{REFweb
Line 42:		Line 52:
	==Proceedings==		==Proceedings==

	Mr. Niznik retained renowned circumcision lawyer [[David J. Llewellyn]] of Atlanta, Georgia to represent him and they filed suit in the [http://www.cookcountycourt.org/ Circuit Court of Cook County], Illinois. Mr. Llewellyn was supported by local counsel Lake, Toback & D'Arco. The Polish-born father, a 49-year-old building manager from Arlington Heights, immediately asked Judge Jordan Kaplan to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the circumcision of his son, pending a trial, which was granted.<ref name="peres0217"~~>{{REFnews~~		Mr. Niznik retained renowned circumcision lawyer [[David J. Llewellyn]] of Atlanta, Georgia to represent him and they filed suit in the [http://www.cookcountycourt.org/ Circuit Court of Cook County], Illinois. Mr. Llewellyn was supported by local counsel Lake, Toback & D'Arco. The Polish-born father, a 49-year-old building manager from Arlington Heights, immediately asked Judge Jordan Kaplan to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the circumcision of his son, pending a trial, which was granted.<ref name="peres0217" /><ref name="arcnews2006" />
	~~\|title=Circumcision decision delayed by court~~
	~~\|url=http:~~/~~/www.cirp.org/news/chicagotribune2006-02-17/~~
	~~\|last=Peres~~
	~~\|first=Judy~~
	~~\|coauthors=~~
	~~\|publisher=Chicago Tribune~~
	~~\|website=~~
	~~\|date=2006-02-17~~
	~~\|accessdate=2020-5-07~~
	~~\|quote=~~
	~~}}</ref~~><ref name="arcnews2006" />

	Drs. [[Robert S. Van Howe\|Van Howe]] and Gibbon served as expert witnesses for the father, while Drs. Hatch and Goldstein served as expert witnesses for the mother, a 31-year-old homemaker from Northbrook, represented by [http://tracyrizzo.com/ Tracy Rizzo].<ref name="arcnews2006"/><ref name="appendixone"/><ref name="peres2006">{{REFnews		Drs. [[Robert S. Van Howe\|Van Howe]] and Gibbon served as expert witnesses for the father, while Drs. Hatch and Goldstein served as expert witnesses for the mother, a 31-year-old homemaker from Northbrook, represented by [http://tracyrizzo.com/ Tracy Rizzo].<ref name="arcnews2006"/><ref name="appendixone"/><ref name="peres2006">{{REFnews
Line 102:		Line 101:
	The decision of the trial judge was not appealed to a higher court so the decision of the trial court stands.<ref name="peres1024" />		The decision of the trial judge was not appealed to a higher court so the decision of the trial court stands.<ref name="peres1024" />

	[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] (2006) commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf\| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.		[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] (2006) later commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf\| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.

	Jonathan Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to genital autonomy — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>		Jonathan Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to genital autonomy — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>

WikiAdmin: typos

2020-05-07T10:42:26Z

typos

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:42, 7 May 2020
Line 7:		Line 7:
	\|title=The Cologne Judgment: a curiosity or the start sign for condemning circumcision of male children without their consent as a human rights violation?		\|title=The Cologne Judgment: a curiosity or the start sign for condemning circumcision of male children without their consent as a human rights violation?
	\|url=https://repository.gchumanrights.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11825/161/Bernaerts_2012%EF%80%A213.pdf		\|url=https://repository.gchumanrights.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11825/161/Bernaerts_2012%EF%80%A213.pdf
	~~\|contribution=~~
	\|last=Bernaerts		\|last=Bernaerts
	\|first=~~Jonothan~~ Alfons J		\|first=Jonathan Alfons J
	\|publisher=[https://ec.europa.eu/info/index_en European Commission]		\|publisher=[https://ec.europa.eu/info/index_en European Commission]
	\|format=PDF		\|format=PDF
Line 56:		Line 55:
	}}</ref><ref name="arcnews2006" />		}}</ref><ref name="arcnews2006" />

	Drs. [[Robert S. Van Howe\| Van Howe]] and Gibbon served as expert witnesses for the father, while Drs. Hatch and Goldstein served as expert witnesses for the mother, a 31-year-old homemaker from Northbrook, represented by [http://tracyrizzo.com/ Tracy Rizzo].<ref name="arcnews2006" /> <ref name="appendixone" /> <ref name="peres2006">{{REFnews		Drs. [[Robert S. Van Howe\|Van Howe]] and Gibbon served as expert witnesses for the father, while Drs. Hatch and Goldstein served as expert witnesses for the mother, a 31-year-old homemaker from Northbrook, represented by [http://tracyrizzo.com/ Tracy Rizzo].<ref name="arcnews2006"/><ref name="appendixone"/><ref name="peres2006">{{REFnews
	\|title=Doctors differ on circumcision need		\|title=Doctors differ on circumcision need
	\|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagotribune2006-06-13/		\|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagotribune2006-06-13/
Line 69:		Line 68:
	}}</ref>		}}</ref>

	She claimed that the boy had [[balanitis]] which she alleged would make his [[circumcision]] a necessary medical treatment, however it was shown that the boy had been swimming in heavily clorinated swimming pools, which caused the irritation. The boy did not have balanitis, so he did not need a circumcision. Even if he did have balanitis, there is more conservative treatment available than radical, destructive circumcision, it was shown.<ref name="appendixone" />		She claimed that the boy had [[balanitis]] which she alleged would make his [[circumcision]] a necessary medical treatment, however it was shown that the boy had been swimming in heavily clorinated swimming pools, which caused the irritation. The boy did not have balanitis, so he did not need a circumcision. Even if he did have balanitis, there is more conservative treatment available than radical, destructive circumcision, it was shown.<ref name="appendixone"/>

	Dr. Van Howe testified the boy the boy had a "normal, non-diseased foreskin" and Dr. Hatch also affirmed the boy had a "normal non-diseased foreskin".<ref name="appendixone" />		Dr. Van Howe testified the boy the boy had a "normal, non-diseased foreskin" and Dr. Hatch also affirmed the boy had a "normal non-diseased foreskin".<ref name="appendixone"/>

	It was brought out that circumcision risks serious psychological damage.<ref name="appendixone" />		It was brought out that circumcision risks serious psychological damage.<ref name="appendixone"/>

	Judge Kaplan ruled on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 that the now nine-year-old boy should not be circumcised. In his ruling, he described circumcision as "''an extraordinary medical procedure as it relates to a nine-year-old child''". He issued an injunction to block the procedure and to protect the boy from circumcision until he turns 18 and can decide for himself.<ref name="johnson2006" /><ref name="reuters2006">{{REFnews		Judge Kaplan ruled on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 that the now nine-year-old boy should not be circumcised. In his ruling, he described circumcision as "''an extraordinary medical procedure as it relates to a nine-year-old child''". He issued an injunction to block the procedure and to protect the boy from circumcision until he turns 18 and can decide for himself.<ref name="johnson2006"/><ref name="reuters2006">{{REFnews
	\|title=Judge rules 9-year-old need not get circumcised.		\|title=Judge rules 9-year-old need not get circumcised.
	\|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/reuters2006-10-25/		\|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/reuters2006-10-25/
Line 105:		Line 104:
	[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] (2006) commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf\| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.		[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] (2006) commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf\| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.

	~~Jonathon~~ Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to genital autonomy — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>		Jonathan Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to genital autonomy — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>

	{{REF}}		{{REF}}

WikiAdmin: /* Afterword */

2020-05-07T10:39:58Z

Afterword

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:39, 7 May 2020
Line 103:		Line 103:
	The decision of the trial judge was not appealed to a higher court so the decision of the trial court stands.<ref name="peres1024" />		The decision of the trial judge was not appealed to a higher court so the decision of the trial court stands.<ref name="peres1024" />

	[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] (2006) commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> Doctors Opposing Circumcision, cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf\| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.		[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] (2006) commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)\|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf\| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.

	Jonathon Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to genital autonomy — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014" />		Jonathon Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to genital autonomy — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>

	{{REF}}		{{REF}}