Boy who lost his penis in circumcision gets 2.3 million dollars

The link.

Quote :

A Fulton County jury has awarded $1.8 million in damages to a boy injured in a botched circumcision.

The state court jury gave another $500,000 to the boy’s mother in the decision rendered Friday.

The case involves a child, identified only as D.P. Jr., who was born at South Fulton Medical Center in 2004. In a suit filed two years later, his mother contended that the doctor who circumcised him removed too much tissue and that his pediatrician failed to respond when a nurse complained of excessive bleeding. The boy’s penis was severed.

:wryyy: :headshot:

Really, is 2.3 million really enough to compensate for the lack of a dick? I think not.

Also, more accidents involving babies' peens and medical instruments that sound like they came from a Saw sequel:

Quote :

In 1985, the penises of two infants were nearly destroyed during circumcisions with an electric cauterizing needle at Northside Hospital. Lawsuits filed against both doctors by the parents of the infants resulted in out-of-court settlements.

Poor kid.

Until they can make functioning penile replacements, no amount of money will be enough.

OH.
MY.
GOD.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I don't understand how this can possibly happen.

This, children, is why I didn't have my son circumcised. As long as you teach your kids to wash themselves, there is no medical reason to have the procedure done. That's horrific.

Quote :

This, children, is why I didn't have my son circumcised.

You didn't get him circumcised because you thought they'd cut his dick off?

Well, while the risk is probably pretty low, I don't think I'd feel too comfortable with a baby of mine having a surgical procedure unless it was necessary. Most circumcisions turn out fine, but still, there's some risk there, especially if you end up with a bad doctor.

On one hand, I feel for the poor kid.
On the other hand, half of the world does pretty fine without one.
Personally, I'd feel much more mutilated if I lost a thumb than if I lost my clit... but that's just me.

The Unoriginal wrote:

On one hand, I feel for the poor kid.
On the other hand, half of the world does pretty fine without one.

DeeDee wrote:

Well, while the risk is probably pretty low, I don't think I'd feel too comfortable with a baby of mine having a surgical procedure unless it was necessary. Most circumcisions turn out fine, but still, there's some risk there, especially if you end up with a bad doctor.

This. And it being accidentally severed is not the only risk with circumcision. I really wouldn't feel comfortable making a permanent alteration on my child's body without their permission unless it was medically necessary. Even with a good doctor and the best of care, shit happens. Why risk it?

2.3 million... penis... Which is better? I'd go for the money, but then I've never had a penis.

DeeDee, I agree with you. It's an unnecessary risk to take, even if it is small.

I wouldn't want to make my kid have an unnecessery surgival procedure just because it was supposed to be religious.

People bitch and whine about pitifully tiny risks of autism from imunisation, and would rather risk MMR, and that's an injection your kid NEEDS. But they're fine with something like circumcision because it's what God wants.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

People bitch and whine about pitifully tiny risks of autism from imunisation, and would rather risk MMR,

"Pitifully tiny"? There are a few (a very few) risks from immunisation, but autism isn't one of them.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

I wouldn't want to make my kid have an unnecessery surgival procedure just because it was supposed to be religious.

People bitch and whine about pitifully tiny risks of autism from imunisation, and would rather risk MMR, and that's an injection your kid NEEDS. But they're fine with something like circumcision because it's what God wants.

You do know that most people in the states don't circumcise for religious reasons, correct?

No. And it's not a rational medical procedure either.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

No. And it's not a rational medical procedure either.

Didn't say it was. Just hinting that perhaps you should check your facts before spouting bullshit.

Why? You don't.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

And it's not a rational medical procedure either.

Especially given that most of Europe's men manage perfectly well with their foreskins intact.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Why? You don't.

Such as?

Lexin wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

And it's not a rational medical procedure either.

Especially given that most of Europe's men manage perfectly well with their foreskins intact.

For the life of me I swear I can't tell if you're being genuine or sarcastic.

Genuine. I'm too tired to be sarcastic.

Ok, if I can read this article and understand it correctly, it said the penis was severed. Did they even attempt a reattachment? It says too much tissue, but it says nothing about the actual outcome of the incident. What I've seen on circumcision on the internet, he would have been lacking a band of skin around the penis not a blunt lop-off like a carrot for a stew. Until I know more, I doubt the kid's without his wang.

rae wrote:

I really wouldn't feel comfortable making a permanent alteration on my child's body without their permission unless it was medically necessary.

[long rant about people putting fucking earrings on their fucking toddlers before they have learned to fucking say no, and about babies not being fucking dress-up dolls for their fucking brainless parents' amusement]



What button?

grmblfjx wrote:

[many words]

[vitriolic comment about how this is not the Existential Flame War]