William Stowell: Difference between revisions
m added photo |
removed information due to Stowell's request |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''William Stowell''' 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''' | |||
He was represented by [[David J. Llewellyn]] of Atlanta, Georgia. | He was represented by [[David J. Llewellyn]] of Atlanta, Georgia. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
Due to statutes of limitation, such suits must be filed shortly after one reaches the age of majority. | Due to statutes of limitation, such suits must be filed shortly after one reaches the age of majority. | ||
== | == Video == | ||
=== Sues After Forced Circumcision === | === Sues After Forced Circumcision === | ||
<youtube>v=MMCaO1SW-dE&feature=watch_response</youtube> | <youtube>v=MMCaO1SW-dE&feature=watch_response</youtube> | ||
| Line 21: | Line 17: | ||
* {{REFweb | * {{REFweb | ||
|url=http://www.circumstitions.com/Law.html | |url=http://www.circumstitions.com/Law.html | ||
|title=Man Sues for Being Circumcised as an Infant | |title=Man Sues for Being Circumcised as an Infant | ||
|publisher=Attorneys for the Rights of the Child | |publisher=Attorneys for the Rights of the Child | ||
|website=http://www.circumstitions.com | |website=http://www.circumstitions.com | ||
|date=2000-12-20 | |date=2000-12-20 | ||
|accessdate=2020-06-07 | |accessdate=2020-06-07 | ||
|quote=This case highlights the travesty of infant circumcision, which seriously breaches the child’s right to bodily integrity and is incompatible with the doctor’s legal and ethical duties toward the child patient. Circumcising a child without medical necessity is criminal assault. All physicians and hospitals that currently circumcise males without medical justification would be wise to reconsider this practice. | |quote=This case highlights the travesty of infant circumcision, which seriously breaches the child’s right to bodily integrity and is incompatible with the doctor’s legal and ethical duties toward the child patient. Circumcising a child without medical necessity is criminal assault. All physicians and hospitals that currently circumcise males without medical justification would be wise to reconsider this practice. | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 38: | Line 27: | ||
|title=Man Sues For Loss of Foreskin | |title=Man Sues For Loss of Foreskin | ||
|url=http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=127183 | |url=http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=127183 | ||
|publisher=ABC News | |publisher=ABC News | ||
|website=abcnews.go.com | |website=abcnews.go.com | ||
| Line 49: | Line 35: | ||
* {{REFnews | * {{REFnews | ||
|title=The Penis Page | |title=The Penis Page | ||
|url= | |url=https://www.cirp.org/news/2001/2001-11-01_penthouse.php | ||
|last=Chester-Taxin | |last=Chester-Taxin | ||
|first=Sharon | |first=Sharon | ||
|publisher=Penthouse | |publisher=Penthouse | ||
|website=www.cirp.org | |website=www.cirp.org | ||
| Line 79: | Line 64: | ||
[[Category:Person]] | [[Category:Person]] | ||
[[Category:Male]] | [[Category:Male]] | ||
[[Category:'... v. ...']] | [[Category:'... v. ...']] | ||
| Line 89: | Line 70: | ||
[[Category:Litigation]] | [[Category:Litigation]] | ||
[[Category:Litigation over circumcision]] | [[Category:Litigation over circumcision]] | ||
[[Category:USA]] | |||
[[Category:From IntactWiki]] | [[Category:From IntactWiki]] | ||