William Stowell: Difference between revisions

Revise external links.Add Video section, Add category, Revise text.
Improve formatting; Remove Construction Site template.
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Construction Site}}
'''William Stowell''' is the young man who brought a suit in federal court against Frank P. Cariello, the obstetrician who [[circumcision|circumcised]] him as an infant and against [https://goodsamaritan.chsli.org/ Good Samaritan Hospital] of West Islip, New York. Stowell's suit was settled out of court in 2003 and does not constitute a legal precedent. The cash settlement is confidential, so it has not been revealed.
'''William Stowell''' is the young man who brought a suit in federal court against Frank P. Cariello, the doctor who [[circumcision|circumcised]] him as an infant and against [https://goodsamaritan.chsli.org/ Good Samaritan Hospital] of West Islip, New York. Stowell's suit was settled out of court in 2003 and does not constitute a legal precedent. The cash settlement is confidential, so it has not been revealed.


He was represented by [[David J. Llewellyn]] of Atlanta, Georgia
He was represented by [[David J. Llewellyn]] of Atlanta, Georgia
Line 7: Line 6:


==Video==
==Video==
 
<br>
*  
* <youtube>v=H8szj1jFCWM</youtube>
 
<br>
*  <youtube>v=MMCaO1SW-dE&feature=watch_response</youtube>
<br>
{{LINKS}}
{{LINKS}}


Line 69: Line 70:
  |quote=David J. Llewellyn, one of Plaintiff Stowell’s attorneys, said, “William and I are very happy that we were able to resolve this case with both the hospital and the doctor. While a settlement is never an admission of liability, I believe it shows that our allegations were taken seriously. Never again can someone say that a young man who is dissatisfied with his circumcision as an infant is being frivolous when he objects to his mutilation and brings suit to obtain justice. This case should send a message to doctors that they run the risk of a lawsuit each time they circumcise an infant for non-therapeutic reasons, particularly when they rely on the hospital to obtain consent the day after birth. Social or cosmetic concerns provide no justification for harmful surgery. I would expect that this is just the first of many cases that will be brought by angry circumcised young men against their circumcisers.”
  |quote=David J. Llewellyn, one of Plaintiff Stowell’s attorneys, said, “William and I are very happy that we were able to resolve this case with both the hospital and the doctor. While a settlement is never an admission of liability, I believe it shows that our allegations were taken seriously. Never again can someone say that a young man who is dissatisfied with his circumcision as an infant is being frivolous when he objects to his mutilation and brings suit to obtain justice. This case should send a message to doctors that they run the risk of a lawsuit each time they circumcise an infant for non-therapeutic reasons, particularly when they rely on the hospital to obtain consent the day after birth. Social or cosmetic concerns provide no justification for harmful surgery. I would expect that this is just the first of many cases that will be brought by angry circumcised young men against their circumcisers.”
}}
}}
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8szj1jFCWM
 
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMCaO1SW-dE&feature=watch_response


{{DEFAULTSORT:Stowell, William}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Stowell, William}}


]]Caterogry:USA]]
[[Category:USA]]
[[Category:Person]]
[[Category:Person]]
[[Category:Male]]
[[Category:Male]]
 
[[Category:Intactivist]]
[[Category:Litigation]]
[[Category:Litigation]]
[[Category:Litigation over circumcision]]
[[Category:Litigation over circumcision]]


[[Category:From IntactWiki]]
[[Category:From IntactWiki]]