22,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
adjust DOC link
She claimed that the boy had [[balanitis]] which she alleged would make his [[circumcision]] a necessary medical treatment, however it was shown that the boy had been swimming in heavily clorinated swimming pools, which caused the irritation. The boy did not have balanitis, so he did not need a circumcision. Even if he did have balanitis, there is more conservative treatment available than radical, destructive circumcision, it was shown.<ref name="appendixone"/>
Dr. [[Robert S. Van Howe |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"/>
==Afterword==
The decision of the trial judge was not appealed to a higher court so the decision of the trial court stands.<ref name="peres1024" />
[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] (2006) commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], later cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007.
Jonathan Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to [[genital autonomy ]] — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014"/>
{{REF}}
[[Category:USA]]
[[Category:'... v. ...']]
[[Category:USALitigation over circumcision]]