Difference between revisions of "New Jersey case"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m (fixed CIRP URLs)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{Construction Site}}
+
'''Matthew Price''' was a 3-year-old in New Jersey, whose parents, Jim and Jennifer, agreed to leave him intact. But the doctor instructed them to retract his foreskin daily. This has not been recommended for decades. Predictabily, it caused inflammation and the doctor then recommended circumcision. Instead, the Prices stopped retracting and Matthew's problems cleared up in June 2000. The Prices are now separated, but Jennifer, who has custody, still wanted him circumcised. Jim had a traumatic circumcision and went to court to ensure that Matthew was left alone."<ref>{{REFweb
 +
|url=http://www.circumstitions.com/Matt.html
 +
|archived=
 +
|title=The case of Matthew Price
 +
|last=Young
 +
|first=Hugh
 +
|author-link=Hugh Young
 +
|website=www.circumstitions.com
 +
|date=2001
 +
|accessdate=2020-06-18
 +
}}</ref>
  
−
In January 2001 a dispute between divorcing parents in New Jersey was resolved when the mother, who sought to have the boy circumcised withdrew her request. The boy had experienced two instances of foreskin inflammation and she wanted to have him circumcised. The father, who had experienced a traumatic circumcision as a child objected and they turned to the courts for a decision. The Medical Society of New Jersey and the Urological Society of New Jersey both opposed any court ordered medical treatment. As the parties came to an agreement, no precedent was set.
+
James Price, the father brought a suit to protect his son from a harmful and injurious circumcision. The trial was held in the court of Judge Paul Armstrong in [https://www.njcourts.gov/courts/vicinages/hunsomwar.html Somerset County]. Judge Armstrong ordered a circumcision, but James Price appealed. The appellate court upheld Judge Armstrong's order, but [https://www.njcourts.gov/courts/supreme.html?lang=eng State Supreme Court] Justice Peter Verniero issued an emergency stay the following day, and on Oct. 31 the justices voted to send the matter back to Armstrong for a full hearing.<ref name="coscarelli2000">{{REFnews
 +
|title=Mother's battle to circumcise is in court
 +
|url=https://www.cirp.org/news/2000/2000-12-03_star-ledger.php
 +
|last=Coscarelli
 +
|first=Kate
 +
|publisher=Star-Ledger (Newark)
 +
|website=[[CIRP]]
 +
|date=2000-12-03
 +
|accessdate=2020-06-19
 +
|quote=
 +
}}</ref>
 +
 
 +
Good medical practice requires that a boy's protective foreskin not be disturbed by forcible retraction. Wright reported, "[t]he normal prepuce should be left alone, with no attempt to retract it until the boy is able to do it himself, at the earliest at three years of age."<ref name="Wright1994">{{REFjournal
 +
|last=Wright
 +
|init=JE
 +
|title=Further to the "Further Fate of the Foreskin"
 +
|journal=Med J Aust
 +
|volume=160
 +
|issue=
 +
|pages=134-35
 +
|url=https://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright2/
 +
|pubmedID=8295581
 +
|pubmedCID=
 +
|DOI=
 +
|date=1994-02-07
 +
|accessdate=2020-6-19
 +
}}</ref> Matthew did not receive good care of his penis from his mother.
 +
 
 +
In January 2001 a dispute between divorcing parents in New Jersey was resolved when the mother, who sought to have the boy circumcised withdrew her request. The boy had experienced two instances of foreskin inflammation and she wanted to have him circumcised. The father, who had experienced a traumatic circumcision as a child objected and they turned to the courts for a decision. The [https://www.mhsnj.org Medical Society of New Jersey] and the Urology Society of New Jersey both opposed any court ordered medical treatment. As the parties came to an agreement that Matthew's [[genital integrity]] would be protected, no precedent was set.<ref name="coscarelli2001">{{REFnews
 +
|title=Accord not to circumcise son still leaves heated legal debate
 +
|url=https://www.cirp.org/news/2001/2001-01-25_star-ledger.php
 +
|last=Coscarelli
 +
|first=Kate
 +
|publisher=Star-Ledger (Newark)
 +
|website=[[CIRP]]
 +
|date=2001-01-25
 +
|accessdate=2024-06-19
 +
}}</ref>
 +
 
 +
{{SEEALSO}}
 +
* [[Foreskin Care for Boys]]
  
 
{{LINKS}}
 
{{LINKS}}
−
* http://www.circumstitions.com/Matt.html
+
* {{URLwikipedia|Circumcision_and_law#United_States|Circumcision and law: United States|2024-06-19}}
−
* http://www.cirp.org/news/star-ledger12-03-00/
 
−
* http://www.cirp.org/news/star-ledger01-25-01/
 
−
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law#United_States
 
  
−
<!-- {{REF}} -->
+
{{REF}}
  
 
[[Category:Litigation]]
 
[[Category:Litigation]]

Latest revision as of 10:44, 19 June 2024

Matthew Price was a 3-year-old in New Jersey, whose parents, Jim and Jennifer, agreed to leave him intact. But the doctor instructed them to retract his foreskin daily. This has not been recommended for decades. Predictabily, it caused inflammation and the doctor then recommended circumcision. Instead, the Prices stopped retracting and Matthew's problems cleared up in June 2000. The Prices are now separated, but Jennifer, who has custody, still wanted him circumcised. Jim had a traumatic circumcision and went to court to ensure that Matthew was left alone."[1]

James Price, the father brought a suit to protect his son from a harmful and injurious circumcision. The trial was held in the court of Judge Paul Armstrong in Somerset County. Judge Armstrong ordered a circumcision, but James Price appealed. The appellate court upheld Judge Armstrong's order, but State Supreme Court Justice Peter Verniero issued an emergency stay the following day, and on Oct. 31 the justices voted to send the matter back to Armstrong for a full hearing.[2]

Good medical practice requires that a boy's protective foreskin not be disturbed by forcible retraction. Wright reported, "[t]he normal prepuce should be left alone, with no attempt to retract it until the boy is able to do it himself, at the earliest at three years of age."[3] Matthew did not receive good care of his penis from his mother.

In January 2001 a dispute between divorcing parents in New Jersey was resolved when the mother, who sought to have the boy circumcised withdrew her request. The boy had experienced two instances of foreskin inflammation and she wanted to have him circumcised. The father, who had experienced a traumatic circumcision as a child objected and they turned to the courts for a decision. The Medical Society of New Jersey and the Urology Society of New Jersey both opposed any court ordered medical treatment. As the parties came to an agreement that Matthew's genital integrity would be protected, no precedent was set.[4]

See also

External links

References

  1. ↑ REFweb Young, Hugh (2001). The case of Matthew Price, www.circumstitions.com. Retrieved 18 June 2020.
  2. ↑ REFnews Coscarelli, Kate (3 December 2000)."Mother's battle to circumcise is in court", CIRP, Star-Ledger (Newark). Retrieved 19 June 2020.
  3. ↑ REFjournal Wright JE. Further to the "Further Fate of the Foreskin". Med J Aust. 7 February 1994; 160: 134-35. PMID. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
  4. ↑ REFnews Coscarelli, Kate (25 January 2001)."Accord not to circumcise son still leaves heated legal debate", CIRP, Star-Ledger (Newark). Retrieved 19 June 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.intactiwiki.org/w/index.php?title=New_Jersey_case&oldid=38578"