Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Schmidt v. Niznik

119 bytes added, 03:16, 7 May 2020
Add information on psychological damage.
}}</ref><ref name="appendixone">{{REFweb
|url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm%3A978-1-4020-9167-4%2F1.pdf
|title=Appendix OneRespondent’s Closing Argument
|last=
|first=
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
16,983
edits

Navigation menu