|
| |
On December 19, 2000, William Stowell filed suit in the US District Court,
Eastern District of New York, against the physician that circumcised him as a
newborn and the hospital where he was circumcised.
Press Release, December 20, 2000
Newsweek, February 26, 2001
ABC Good Morning America, March 12,
2001
Stowell Settlement Press Release April 25, 2003
|
National Organization of Circumcision Information
Resource Centers
PO Box 2512, San Anselmo, California 94979 www.nocirc.org
Tel: 415-488-9883 Fax: 415-488-9660
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
2961 Ashby Avenue, Berkeley, California 94705 www.arclaw.org
Fax/Phone 510-595-5550
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 25, 2003 CONTACT: Marilyn
F. Milos, R.N. 1-415-488-9883
Doctor and Hospital Settle Circumcision Lawsuit
Stage Set for Men to Sue for Being Circumcised as
Infants
SUFFOLK COUNTY, New York – After a two-and-a-half
year legal battle with Plaintiff William G. Stowell, the doctor and
hospital have settled the landmark circumcision case brought against them.
The terms of the settlements have not been publicly disclosed.
Twenty-one-year old Stowell filed suit December 19, 2000, in the U. S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against the hospital
where he was circumcised and the physician who circumcised him as a
newborn.
Stowell, born on December 22, 1981, in West Islip, NY,
was circumcised the following day by his mother’s obstetrician. This
case presented the issue of the legal validity of consent for circumcision
obtained by a nurse from a mother who was debilitated by the effects of a
Caesarian section and painkillers. It also questioned whether a physician
could legally and ethically remove healthy, normal tissue from a
non-consenting minor for non-therapeutic reasons.
David J. Llewellyn, one of Plaintiff Stowell’s attorneys, said,
"William and I are very happy that we were able to resolve this case
with both the hospital and the doctor. While a settlement is never an
admission of liability, I believe it shows that our allegations were taken
seriously. Never again can someone say that a young man who is
dissatisfied with his circumcision as an infant is being frivolous when he
objects to his mutilation and brings suit to obtain justice.
This case should send a message to
doctors that they run the risk of a lawsuit each time they circumcise an
infant for non-therapeutic reasons, particularly when they rely on the
hospital to obtain consent the day after birth. Social or cosmetic
concerns provide no justification for harmful surgery. I would expect that
this is just the first of many cases that will be brought by angry
circumcised young men against their circumcisers."
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) first acknowledged that there
was no medical justification for routine circumcision in 1971. Last year,
the AAP reaffirmed that it does not recommend routine circumcision. The
American Medical Association concurred this year, calling routine
circumcision "non-therapeutic." No national or international
medical organization recommends routine circumcision.
The case has received national attention from Good Morning America,
Newsweek, The New York Post, and other prominent media sources.
XXX
John L. Juliano of East Northport, New York, and David J. Llewellyn of
Conyers, Georgia, represented Mr. Stowell. Mr. Llewellyn, who regularly represents the victims of circumcision
throughout the country, can be reached at
1-770-918-1911.
|
|
