15,477
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
* http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2015/03/05/m-c-v-aaronson-update/
* http://www.advocate.com/society/youth/2013/05/14/lawsuit-filed-over-unnecessary-surgery-intersex-baby
Add link; add reference.
|first=Ryan L.
|author-link=
|title=Preferred Private Parts: Importing IntersexAutonomy Intersex Autonomy for ''M.C. v. Aaronson''
|journal=Fordham International Law Journal
|date=2014
The doctors debated for 4 months over what sex they should assign to M.C. Two deciding factors were the fact that the foster parents were raising the toddler as a girl and the child’s vagina seemed fully formed.
According to court documents, the decision to assign M.C. as female never went before a judge. No guardian was appointed. And it does not appear the doctors requested an ethical consultation.<ref name="wyff2014" />
Bioethicist Carmela Epright said, "I suspect strongly the reason this didn't go before a judge is because no one thought this was a hard question. They thought they had the answer. He wasn't sick in any way. What he was, was a problem from an adoption standpoint."<ref name="wyff2014" />
==Gender dissatisfaction==
== Lawsuit ==
The Crawfords filed federal and state lawsuits in 2013 against MUSC, Greenville Health System and DSS. <ref name="wyff2014" />
The fact that M.C. was in foster care and treated in state-run hospitals allowed the federal court case to claim a breach of his constitutional rights. The case was accepted by the district court to go to trial, but the decision was appealed. If M.C.’s case were successful, it would set a precedent that surgery on intersex children is unconstitutional in at least some situations, such as when it is very difficult to predict gender.
The suit filed in federal court alleged that the defendants violated the child's right to privacy by deciding to go forward with the surgery. The state suit alleges medical malpractice and gross negligence.
M.C.’s lawsuit–supported by the [https://www.splcenter.org Southern Poverty Law Center], among others–brought § 1983 claims against all defendants, alleging that they violated substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed to M.C. by the 14th Amendment. It also charged that that the doctors committed medical malpractice by failing to obtain adequate informed consent before proceeding. The District Court for the District of South Carolina denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and rejected their defense of qualified immunity.
[[Advocates for Informed Choice]] (AIC) is working with the SPLC on behalf of the Crawfords. The AIC is an organization that specializes in advocating for the rights of intersex children, according to its director and founder, Anne Tamar-Mattis.
On January 26, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint. The Fourth Circuit stated that it did not “mean to diminish the severe harm that M.C. claims to have suffered” but that a reasonable official in 2006 did not have fair warning from then-existing precedent that performing sex assignment surgery on sixteen-month-old M.C. violated a clearly established constitutional right. <ref name="largent2015">{{REFweb |url=https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2015/03/05/m-c-v-aaronson-update/ |archived= |title=M.C. v. Aaronson – Update |trans-title= |language=English |last=Largent |first=Emily |author-link= |publisher=Bill of Health |website=blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu |date=2015-03-05 |accessdate=2020-07-10 |format= |quote=}}</ref> According to ''Post Courier'', "Defense lawyers successfully argued that doctors weren’t aware when they operated that they may have violated M.C.’s civil rights. "
Meanwhile, the state lawsuit in Richland County is moving forward. DSS denies the allegations, court records show. The case may be tried by a jury sometime after Nov. 15.
{{LINKS}}
* http://www.wyff4.com/news/dss-loses-motion-to-delay-case-of-intersex-child/25401094
* http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol37/iss3/2/