20,856
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→State case
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 [[uncircumcisedintact]] 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.