Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nebus v. Hironimus

4 bytes added, 16:19, 24 November 2021
m
wikify HIV
Nebus claimed that C.R.N.H. wet his leg during urination, something he attributed to phimosis and expected to cure with the circumcision.
A medical expert, Dr. Charles Flack, testified that C.R.N.H. had no need for the circumcision. Flack also listed some of the common benefits, including the (incorrect) statement that penile cancer only occurs on [[uncircumcised]] males, and the claim reduction of [[HIV ]] infection.
On May of 2014, Judge [[Jeffrey Dana Gillen]] sided with the father, suggesting that the procedure can be performed with local anesthesia (which is not the case) and ignoring an important change in circumstances: at 3 and 1/2 years, C.R.N.H. is already aware of his body and afraid of a surgery, which increases the risk for trauma and psychological harm.
administrator, administrators, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators
22,335
edits

Navigation menu