Evidence clearly documents that routine infant circumcision:
2. Has no medical justification
3. Has an unacceptable risk of complications
4. Is a mutilative and contraindicated amputation of the protective and functional tissue on a healthy organ
5. Fails to legally qualify as surgery:
a. No diseased tissue is removed
b. No abnormality is repaired
c. No injury or disorder is treated
d. The patient (victim) is non-consenting
6. Legally is an act of criminal assault
7. Is a purely social convention
8. Contributes to sexual impotence in adult men
9. Is becoming a media "cause celebre"
Treating the naturally flawless foreskin as a birth defect robs an infant of his birthright. Removal of his innate erogenous and protective tissue deprives him of his constitutionally guaranteed right to pursue happiness through sexual fulfillment as an adult.
Citing just such arguments in September, 1996, Congress passed a law making the genital mutilation of females illegal. Under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this law must also apply to males. A test case is currently working its way through the federal court system.
Consent forms for routine genital mutilation are worthless paper. A parent cannot give valid consent on behalf of a child when the surgical act is medically unnecessary. In law, a contract is not legal if the purpose of its content is illegal. The victim is too young to give informed consent to cosmetic surgery on his penis. Furthermore, his cries and struggle against his restraints legally give 'constructive notice' that he is non-consenting.
Many parents who sign consent forms later express they felt coerced or even tricked into signing them. The consent form folly effectively conjoins hospitals and physicians as co-conspirators violating the civil rights of the infant.
In the very near future an American medical doctor will be prosecuted and convicted of criminal assault in a case of routine infant circumcision - a genital mutilation. This will open up the floodgates to copycat lawsuits. Given the facts, most of those lawsuits could be successful. Financial losses would be staggering. And the media circus would radically depreciate public opinion of all American physicians for a generation.
Malpractice insurance companies will not pay when a doctor is convicted of a criminal act of deception by an intentional act of omission. Failure to adequately inform the parents of the protective and erogenous functions of the male foreskin, and its irretrievable loss by circumcision is that omission. Deception and misrepresentation regarding the medical advisability of an unnecessary sexual reductive surgery could result in a conviction of a criminal act of fraud. Criminal fraud cannot be dismissed in discovery; it must be settled or go to public trial.
Because medical insurance companies cover the procedure neonatally they may be drawn into the lawsuits as criminal co-conspirators. These trials will portray the kaleidoscopic multitude of scientifically disproved excuses given for routine infant male genital mutilation as the greatest medical hoax of the twentieth century - a veritable sexual holocaust.
Three sobering facts should give malpractice insurance companies reason to reflect on their steadily increasing potential for loss:
2. The great number of physicians who still wantonly perform these social mutilations.
3. The awakening of adult male consciousness and subsequent hostility regarding the life-long detrimental effects of their sexual mutilation.
American medical doctors may also be prosecuted for human rights violations under international law. Given the evidence against routine infant male genital mutilation, physicians could be found guilty of "crimes against humanity". America is shamefully the only country left on earth where routine (non-religious) male genital mutilations are still done in great numbers - a fact the more civilized jury populations of Europe and Asia find appalling.
One way or another the longest running unchecked social experiment in American history, "Routine Infant Male Genital Mutilation", is about to abruptly end. Physicians guilty of professional ignorance or of deceiving parents regarding the life-long deleterious effects of their actions will no longer be tolerated. The privilege of unaccountability will cease. Times and people change. Unlike past generations, twenty-first century parents will not blindly acquiesce to unquestioned medical authority.
The Fifth International Symposium on Sexual Mutilations will convene August 5th at the University of Oxford, England. There, forty-five world renowned medical, legal, and human rights experts will provide enough facts and sound bites to attract every lawyer in this hemisphere to the embarrassing predicament American physicians, hospitals, and insurers have created for themselves.
There is a solution to the pending dilemma that can save the assets of the medical community, and it's integrity. If Congress were to pass a law specifically making male genital mutilation illegal, as it did for females, then a principal in American law called "ex post facto" would protect all medical doctors and hospitals from prosecution for those same acts - provided they were committed before the law was enacted. That is as close to a blanket amnesty for past crimes as is legally possible in this country.
The AMA should take the lead in protecting its members and immediately pass a Resolution to the Congress of the United States requesting that, "In the name of humanity," this Congress should pass emergency legislation making the routine genital mutilation of males a federal crime.
Without this legislation the entire American medical community is now risking more than just shame and humiliation for this senseless and inhumane practice, it's risking imminent financial calamity.
Gary L. Harryman
860 Robinson Road
Topanga, CA 90290
Return to opening page.