22,335
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
|contribution=
Jonathon 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"/>
typos
|title=The Cologne Judgment: a curiosity or the start sign for condemning circumcision of male children without their consent as a human rights violation?
|url=https://repository.gchumanrights.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11825/161/Bernaerts_2012%EF%80%A213.pdf
|last=Bernaerts
|first=Jonothan Jonathan Alfons J
|publisher=[https://ec.europa.eu/info/index_en European Commission]
|format=PDF
}}</ref><ref name="arcnews2006" />
Drs. [[Robert S. Van Howe| Van Howe]] and Gibbon served as expert witnesses for the father, while Drs. Hatch and Goldstein served as expert witnesses for the mother, a 31-year-old homemaker from Northbrook, represented by [http://tracyrizzo.com/ Tracy Rizzo].<ref name="arcnews2006" /> <ref name="appendixone" /> <ref name="peres2006">{{REFnews
|title=Doctors differ on circumcision need
|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagotribune2006-06-13/
}}</ref>
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. 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
|title=Judge rules 9-year-old need not get circumcised.
|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/reuters2006-10-25/
[[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]], 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.
{{REF}}