Botched-Circumcision Attorneys

[admin]

In addition to ARCLAW and David Llewellyn, parents (and doctors) should know that the firm linked below has won huge settlements.

http://www.parkerscheer.com/personal...-circumcision/

[Aspie]

Now if the laws would just be changed so that everyone can get justice.

[z726]

They include "excessive tissue loss" in their list of what may constitute a botched circumcision. Makes me wonder what they'd consider excessive - if it would be an immediately apparent loss, or a problem noticed as the child grew older.

http://www.parkerscheer.com/personal...-circumcision/
(not the same link; the forum software just abbreviates it so it looks the same)

[Dasher]

I would think that any circumcision would constitute "excessive tissue loss" since the foreskin is a natural part of the male anatomy.

But you might get enhanced special damages for being cut so tight that you have painful erections. Or for loss of frenulum.

[Mister.Barbecue]

I can't help but think that the door is potentially wide open for lawsuits againt circum-butchers. After all, how much skin has to be removed to get the "medical benefits"?

I would say if you have insufficient skin mobility for normal masturbation (running the skin over the corona for pleasure) then too much was taken off. No skin mobility also has demonstrable effects in intercourse. I am cut pretty tight and if a girl does not have enough lube, I get chafing.

And what about the frenulum? Indisputably one of the most sensitive areas on the penis, and yet does it need to be cut off to get the supposed "medical benefits"? Surely not. Sue for that too, since it's needless and damaging. There's no reason it should be cut off.

This is of course absurd to me because I believe circumcision is criminally damaging regardless, and I don't believe in validating circumcision as a legitimate procedure. However, since it's already de facto accepted, why not make them pay for damaging penises? It might have a great chilling effect on the would-be mutilators. I dont see why these arguments should not be accepted as "bad circumcision job" in today's courts.