Schmidt v. Niznik: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Afterword: Revise and relocate text. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Add information on psychological damage. |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
}}</ref><ref name="appendixone">{{REFweb | }}</ref><ref name="appendixone">{{REFweb | ||
|url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm%3A978-1-4020-9167-4%2F1.pdf | |url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm%3A978-1-4020-9167-4%2F1.pdf | ||
|title= | |title=Respondent’s Closing Argument | ||
|last= | |last= | ||
|first= | |first= | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
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" /> | |||
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 | ||