Child and his parents awarded 4.6 mil for loss of glans penis.

Link.

Quote :

A judge today said he will approve a $4.6 million settlement of a lawsuit brought on behalf of a boy who was the victim of a botched circumcision at a Los Angeles clinic when he was a week old.

The accord to be signed by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rex Heeseman brings an end to the case filed by the boy's mother, Melanie Hall, against Miltex Inc. and its parent company, Integra Life Sciences Holding Corp., in February 2007.

The boy and his family lived in Los Angeles at the time and and now reside in Austin, Texas. He, his mother and his brother were present in court today.

The family will receive $3.07 million of the settlement total after attorneys' fees and costs are deducted.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Anthony Pickett performed the circumcision on the boy, now 8, at the Maternity Center of Vermont on Jan. 3, 2003. Pickett used a Miltex Mogen clamp that removed 85 percent of the top of the boy's penis, according to the suit.

This isn't the only boy who's had the head of his dick removed by the Mogen clamp, btw. Another rather unfortunate case is that of a three-year-old known only as "L.G.", who lost the whole thing. Oh well, I guess having 15% of something is better than nothing, right?

Quote :

The boy will need yearly visits to a pediatric urologist and will continue to obtain psychiatric care "to deal with the trauma of this incident and resultant surgeries," the plaintiff's court papers state. "In addition, future surgery may be required as he grows older."

Hey, it's not like it's something he remembers losing and it's not like he's ever experienced having a full penis head, right?

In all seriousness though, this kid is pretty screwed as far as sexual sensation goes, since not only has he lost the nerves in his excised foreskin, but the nerves in the severed glans. Merely making something that looks like a penis head will be a poor substitute for the real thing. And the kid will have lived for years missing a vital part of his penis and knowing that it was taken from him in an unnecessary operation that was performed without his consent. That's got to cause some mental and emotional scars.

Quote :

Browne Greene, an attorney for the boy and his mother, said in a sworn statement that the case presented unique challenges. Medical malpractice statutes appeared to limit recovery in the case and it also involved an uninsured doctor, according to Greene.

"This case is one of the more extraordinary cases I have participated in during my nearly 50 years of practicing law," Greene said. "Through extraordinary research, diligent work-up, creative lawyering and hundreds of hours of hard work ... if we had not done such a remarkable job it is highly likely (the boy) would never have collected upon a judgment that might have been limited to $250,000."

Nice to know that someone's future sex life and sexual, physical, and emotional health are valued at only around $250,000 normally, and that someone has to fight like tooth and nail to make it be valued more...

Why is flesh sacrifice still performed in this day and age? The only thing that's missing from the procedure is the fire pit to throw the poor kid's dinky into.

Why were they doing it with a uninsured doctor?

Ever watch the HBO documentary Hot Coffee?

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

It's definitely worth it. I never knew that the McDonald's coffee lady was a smear campaign.

Hey, at least they didn't decide "Meh, if he's missing a penis that makes him a girl. Bring in the dresses!"

Sakurelf wrote:

Ever watch the HBO documentary Hot Coffee?

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

It's definitely worth it. I never knew that the McDonald's coffee lady was a smear campaign.

Haven't seen it yet, but I just looked it up and read about it here. It looks pretty interesting.

All in all, I'm still disturbed that the lawyers for this family had to fight to get more than $250,000, when we all know that the costs of surgery to provide him a facsimile of a glans and repair his damaged urethra and the cost of psychiatric/psychological care for the boy (and the parents as well) would definitely go way over that.

bleachedblackcat wrote:

Hey, at least they didn't decide "Meh, if he's missing a penis that makes him a girl. Bring in the dresses!"

True, and I think that, despite the horrible decision his parents made in getting him circumcised, they made the right choice in not doing a forced sex reassignment on him (because I can't believe that it was never offered to them after that).

If he identifies as male, though, I imagine losing such an important body part would be pretty horrible. And if she's trans, I would think that losing that part of the penis would impair any sort of possible SRS.

This kid's only hope for a fully functional penis is if regenerative medicine kicks into high gear in the next few years.

Why you'd ever allow someone with a scalpel even near your son's penis for an entirely superficial procedure is beyond me.

Hygene nothing, we'll teach him about soap and water, thank you very much Mr. Quack.

the asylum wrote:

Why you'd ever allow someone with a scalpel even near your son's penis for an entirely superficial procedure is beyond me.

Hygene nothing, we'll teach him about soap and water, thank you very much Mr. Quack.

If I'm correctly thinking of the tool they used, it was a device that's more of a crushing/clipping movement than a scalpel (which is what's preferred, if not required, IIRC, in most religious circumcisions).

any device that's designed to cut through soft tissue all the same.

the asylum wrote:

any device that's designed to cut through soft tissue all the same.

True, but at least a scalpel has a slightly better chance of being controlled. This clamp apparently operates in such a way that you're essentially cutting "blind": the operator can't see the penis while they're making the cut.

(Granted, that info's coming from Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, but honestly, why would you cut ANYTHING you can't see clearly? It's pretty much begging for a major, major incident like this one.)

lemmingwriter wrote:

(Granted, that info's coming from Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, but honestly, why would you cut ANYTHING you can't see clearly? It's pretty much begging for a major, major incident like this one.)

Less blood loss due to automatic pressure on the wound, would be my guess. Not that I'm for circumcision, but, that would seem to be the logical reasoning.

TheHedonist wrote:

lemmingwriter wrote:

(Granted, that info's coming from Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, but honestly, why would you cut ANYTHING you can't see clearly? It's pretty much begging for a major, major incident like this one.)

Less blood loss due to automatic pressure on the wound, would be my guess. Not that I'm for circumcision, but, that would seem to be the logical reasoning.

Yeah, I think that is the reason. Clamps like the Mogen basically crush the veins/arteries (and everything else) flat, but a scalpel is used to cut away the foreskin. This is a pro-circ site, but it does give some pictures of the Mogen being used. And it is used in religious circumcisions - it was invented by a mohel.

The Gomco and Plastibell (not worksafe) are other devices that use crushing/strangulation of blood flow.