Some Thoughts on Legal Remedies

  • David J. Llewellyn


In considering the efficacy of various legal remedies to curtail routine infant male circumcision, particular attention must be given to the psychological and religious issues surrounding it. Many who are opposed to the continued, wide-spread practice of circumcision are hopeful that a quick remedy will entail a few well-brought lawsuits. They contend that a class action on behalf of circumcised men or suits brought by men who have just come of age against their circumcisers will have the effect either of causing the various legislatures to outlaw the procedure or of causing the medical profession to abandon any sanction of it. Unfortunately, the experience in the courts, thus far, does not give much hope to those who would proceed in this manner. Undoubtedly, this is because of the strong emotional issues that surround this ritualised surgery. It has been the author’s experience, however, that the emotional biases supporting circumcision can be overcome with factual appeals to the intellect when presented in an emotional manner. Successful damage claims and suits can have a tremendous educational effect upon the general public, as well as upon the medical profession. In the movement against genital mutilation, they can be one of the most effective weapons, if properly brought.


Necrotizing Fasciitis Male Circumcision Female Genital Mutilation Male Genitalia Product Liability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    For examples of the scope of circumcision-caused injuries, see: Gluckman GR, Stoller ML, Jacobs MM, Kogan BA. Newborn penile glans amputation during circumcision and successful reattachment. J Urol 1995;153:778–9. Sherman J, Borer JG, Horowitz M, Glassberg KI. Circumcision: successful glanular reconstruction and survival following traumatic amputation. J Urol 1996; 156:842–4. Baskin LS, Canning DA, Snyder HM 3rd, Duckett JW Jr. Surgical repair of urethral circumcision injuries. J Urol 1997;158:2269–71. Bliss DPJr, Healey PJ, Waldhausen JH. Necrotizing fasciitis after Plastibell circumcision. J Pediatr 1997;131:459–61. Ngan JH, Waldhausen J, Santucci R. “I think this child has an infected penis after neonatal circumcision...,” Online Pediatric Urology (April 1996). Enzenauer RW, Dotson CR, Leonard T Jr, Brown J 3d, Pettett PG, Holton ME. Increased incidence of neonatal staphylococcal pyoderma in males. Mil Med 1984;149:408–10. Enzenauer RW, Dotson CR, Leonard T, Reuben L, Bass JW, Brown J 3d. Male predominance in persistent staphylococcal colonization and infection of the newborn. Hawaii Med J 1985;44:389–96. Connelly KP, Shropshire LC, Salzberg A. Gastric rupture associated with prolonged crying in a newborn undergoing circumcision. CIin Pediatr Phila 1992;31:560–1. Persad R, Sharma S, McTavish J, Imber C, Mouriquand PD. Clinical presentation and pathophysiology of meatal stenosis following circumcision. Br J Urol 1995;75:91–3. Kuru1 S. Iatrogenic penile gangrene: 10-year follow-up. PIast Reconstr Surg 1995;95:210–1. Gearhart JP. Complications of pediatric circumcision. pp. In: Marshall FF, ed. Urologic Complications: Medical and Surgical, Adult and Pediatric. Chicago and London: Year Book Medical Publishers, Inc. 1986:387–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benedek E. How circumcision came full circle: Unkindest cut? New York Times 1996;145(50,432):E3. (May 19,1996).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E.g. Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996;77:291–5Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benedek E. How circumcision came full circle: Unkindest cut? New York Times 1996;145(50,432):E3. (May 19,1996).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weiss GN. Prophylactic neonatal surgery and infectious disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1997;16:727–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katz M. Circumcision and infectious diseases. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1997;16:1100–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laliberte R. The circumcision decision. Parents 1996;71(2):67–70.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glemser B. All About the Human Body. New York: Random House, Inc. 1958:131.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See the illustrations of a boy and a young man, In: Gordon S. Girls Are Girls and Boys Are Boys So What’s the Difference? New York: The John Day Company. 1974.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Briggs A. Circumcision: What Every Parent Should Know. Earlysville, Virginia: Birth & Parenting Publications. 1985:149.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wallerstein E. Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy. New York: Springer Publishing Co. 1981.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Swanson J, Forrest K. Men’s Reproductive Health. New York: Springer Publishing Co. 1984:36.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Swanson J, Forrest K. Men’s Reproductive Health. New York: Springer Publishing Co. 1984:5.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Report of the task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 1989;84:388–91.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schoen EJ. Ode to the circumcised male. Am J Dis Child 1987;141:128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schoen EJ. Is circumcision healthy?—Yes. Priorities 1997;9(4):24,26,28.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    LaMott A. Operating Instructions. New York: Fawcett Books. 1994. Cited In: Schoen EJ. Is circumcision healthy?—Yes. Priorities 1997;9(4):24,26.28.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schoen EJ. Is it time for Europe to reconsider newborn circumcision? [letter] Acta Paediatr Scand 1991;80:573–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schoen EJ. Benefits of newborn circumcision: is Europe ignoring medical evidence? Arch Dis Child 1997;77:258–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hitchcock R. Commentary on: Benefits of newborn circumcision: is Europe ignoring medical evidence? Arch Dis Child 1997;77:260.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Babycenter. Great Debates: Circumcision: What the Experts Say., quoting: Brazelton TB. Touchpoints: Your Child’s Emotional and Behavioral Development. New York: Perseus 1994.
  22. 22.
    Ian. My story. Circumcision Online News.
  23. 23.
    Greene A. What are the advantages and disadvantages of performing a circumcision on a newborn? Dr. Green’s House Calls: Pediatric Wisdom for the Information Age. (April 29, 1996):
  24. 24.
    Parris DL. A joy forever. Circumcision Online News.
  25. 25.
    See: Jenkins M. Separated at birth. Men’s Health 1998;13(6):130–5.163. (August).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mason T. Circumcision: the unkindest cut? Men’s Fitness (September) 1991:42–6.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    See: Brigman WE. Circumcision as child abuse: the legal and constitutional issues, Journal of Family Law 1984-1985;23:337–57.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bonner CA. Kinane MJ. Circumcision: the legal and constitutional issues. Truth Seeker 1989:1(3):S1–4. (July/August).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dwyer J G. Parents’ religion and children’s welfare: debunking the doctrine of parents’ rights. California Law Review 1994;82:1371–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chessler AJ. Justifying the unjustifiable: rite v. wrong. Buffalo Law Review 1997;45:555–613.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    See: City of Boerne v. Flores, US., 117 S.Ct. 2157, L.Ed2d. 1997.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    “A religious ritual, such as a circumcision, anciently practiced, and reasonably conducted, is not subject to governmental restrictions so long as it is consistent with the peace or safety of this state (see Art. 1 § 3 N.Y. State Constitution).” Zakhartchenko v. Weinberger, 159 Misc.2d 411,605 N.Y.S.2d 205,206 (Sup. 1993).Google Scholar
  33. 34.
    London v. Glasser, et al., No. 118799, Superior Court of California, Marin County, Complaint filed July 12, 1984.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    Boyd BR. Circumcision Exposed: Rethinking a Medical and Cultural Tradition. Freedom, California: The Crossing Press 1998. 128.Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    N.Y. Agriculture and Markets Law § 368 (McKinney 1997); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 16.52.090 (1997); Cal. Penal Code § 597n (West 1997).Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    N. Y. Agriculture and Markets Law § 365 (McKinney 1997); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 466.40 (1997).Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996;77:291–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 39.
    Goldman R. Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma.Boston: Vanguard Publications. 1997:192.Google Scholar
  39. 41.
    Felice v. Valleylab, Inc., 520 So.2d 920 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1987).Google Scholar
  40. 42.
    Thompson T. Two Atlanta physicians get reprimand over babies’ burns suffered during circumcisions. Atlanta Constitution (November 11, 1986):1–B.Google Scholar
  41. 43.
    Seabrook C. $22.8 million said to settle circumcision suit. Atlanta Constitution (March 12, 1991):Al.Google Scholar
  42. 44.
    Sherman R. Circumcision suits risky to pursue. National Law Journal 1988:10(24):9. (February 22, 1988).Google Scholar
  43. 49.
    Goldman R. Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma. Boston: Vanguard Publications. 1997:203.Google Scholar
  44. 50.
    Useful diagrams and illustrations may be found in: Ritter TJ, Denniston GC. Say No to Circumcision! 40 Compelling Reasons. Aptos, California: Hourglass Book Publishing. 1996.Google Scholar
  45. 51.
    Strain E. Punitive damages in a products liability case: what you can’t Af(Ford v. Uniroyal) not to know about threshold evidentiary standards and juror reactions to punitive claims. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Products Liability Institute, Institute of Continuing Legal Education in Georgia. Atlanta, Georgia, February 13, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Llewellyn

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations