Recently, a doctor performed a circumcision on a couple’s newborn baby without the parent’s permission. Somehow this event has been brought into the public’s attention as though it was nationally, newsworthy. The associated press has reported that the parents have filed suit against both the physicians and South Miami Hospital, the health care facility where this occurred.
On can surmise the many reasons why this event was newsworthy, the least of which should address the issue of whether how much harm was actually suffered by the patient i.e. the minor child. Is it possible that the parents were philosophically or religiously opposed to the notion of a circumcision? Were the parents against the procedure from a health standpoint?
Assuming that the physician and hospital attempted to charge the family for this non-requested circumcision were they concerned about the financial responsibility or would you like to surmise that both the physician and health care facility would forego the charges to avoid further upsetting the couple?
Modern medicine considers a circumcision to be a recommended procedure most conveniently performed at or near the first few weeks after birth. There is little debate concerning this within the medical community. So the bigger question is: did the media bring this to the public’s attention to somehow cast further negativity on victim’s rights to bring legitimate personal injury and medical malpractice cases in the state of Florida.