Rapid Responses to:

NEWS ROUNDUP:
Christopher Zinn
Surgeons postpone work as insurer goes broke
BMJ 2002; 324: 1057b [Full text]
*Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

[Read Rapid Response] Circumcision imposes risk on surgeons
George Hill   (4 May 2002)

Circumcision imposes risk on surgeons 4 May 2002
Top
George Hill,
Executive Secretary
Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Suite 42, 2442 NW Market Street, Seattle, Washington 98107, USA

Send response to journal:
Re: Circumcision imposes risk on surgeons

EDITOR—Zinn reports that the United Medical Protection Company (Australia) has collapsed and that many surgeons in Australia are without malpractice coverage.1 Doctors are planning to do only low risk procedures.1

Child circumcision is one surgery that could be eliminated from medical practice without injury to patient health and well-being. The American Medical Association defines neonatal circumcision as an unnecessary non-therapeutic procedure.2 The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons (AAPS) does not support the practice of child circumcision.3

Turner warns that a doctor who carries out a non-therapeutic circumcision is at risk of being sued.4 A young man actually did sue his circumciser and received a settlement of AU$360,000.5

Male circumcision excises healthy protective, erogenous tissue from the human body in a documented injury,6 so it is an offence against the child's common law right to bodily integrity.7 Parental written consent may not protect the circumciser from litigation. Legal commentators believe that parents lack the power to consent to non-therapeutic injury to children's genital organs7,8 after the High Court ruling in Marion's Case.9 The AAPS comments that the child, "had [he] been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain [his] prepuce."3 Such desire for an intact penis and bodily integrity may well spur litigation even if the circumcision technically was performed perfectly.

Any operator who undertakes a non-therapeutic circumcision in today's legal and ethical climate without proper liability insurance is assuming a great and unreasonable risk.

George Hill, Executive Secretary,
Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Suite 42, 2442 NW Market Street, Seattle, Washington 98107 USA
Web: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

  1. Zinn C. Surgeons postpone work as insurer goes broke. BMJ 2002;324:1057.
  2. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Report 10: Neonatal circumcision. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1999.
  3. J Fred Leditschke. Guidelines for Circumcision. Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons. Herston, QLD: 1996.
  4. Turner N. Circumcised Boys May Sue. The Health Law Update (Australia) 1996;1(4):1-2.
  5. Butler B. The cruel cut that ruined a man's life. Sunday Times, Perth, 26 December 1999: 2.
  6. Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996;77:291-295.
  7. Richards D. Male circumcision: medical or ritual. J Law Medicine 1996;3:371-376.
  8. Boyle GJ, Svoboda JS. Price CP, Turner JN. Circumcision of healthy boys: criminal assault? J Law Medicine 2000; 7: 301-310.
  9. Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (1992) 175 CLR 218 at 303.