http://www.yobserver.com/local-news/10019069.html

Lawyer demands nurse’s member be cut off

Posted in: Local News

Written By: Shuaib M. al-Mosawa

Article Date: Jul 3, 2010 - 4:52:08 PM

The East court in Taiz province is delivering a verdict on December 18th on the case of the medical personnel accused of amputating a child’s penis during a circumcise operation.

The child, Abdulkaher Sultan, was born by caesarean section, an operation in which a woman’s body is cut open to take a baby out, at al-Thawrah hospital. “Upon his delivery, he had circumcise operation by a nurse without his parents knowing about it,” said Osama al-Asbahi, the child lawyer and the president of Justice Foundation for consultancy and training in Taiz province.

Al-Asbahi said the operation was made by the wrong medical devise, which is designed to stop bleeding. The child, according to al-Asbahi, had his penis cut off. The medical committee reported at the hospital said it was a deformity and that the child needed plastic surgery; the coroner, according to al-Asbahi, said it was as a result of a miscarriage of a circumcise operation.

Al-Asbahi is demanding the penises of those responsible be cut off especially since the operation was done without the parent’s consent.

What a sad story.

I just don't get it. This happens WAY too often to be "just an accident." Seriously, I read about this sort of thing a LOT, and don't tell me for one second that EVERY occurence is an UNintended "accident."

We, the human race, have been circumcising our males for a l-o-n-g time, and the first circumcisions were performed in non-sterile and very primitive conditions, yet the circumcised males survived. This operation is relatively simple, and should have long long ago been perfected, yet we STILL hear the same story over and over again, "a botched circumcision....."

Firstly, WHY are so many circumcisions performed at such an early age, when the baby's penis is so small?

Secondly, as often as (male) circumcision is done, it really should have been PERFECTED by now.

I am not familiar with the people involved in this particular case, so I am not absolutely certain that they are guilty of malicious wounding, they may have just been criminally stupid and incompetent, but I agree with the victim's father, that harsh punishment is in order for this case. That the parents were not told of the operation in advance, and that they did not consent before the operation, leads me to believe that this was in fact a case of malicious wounding.

Finally, there is another thread for comments about whether circumcising males is a good or bad thing.

Cutting the wrong end.

A medical person should be decapitated for this.

...the heads should roll...

i totaly agree circumcision has been goin on they must be able to doit right by now this realy should be delt with in the most sevear way on the person who carried it out

Let's hope that the unfortunate victim takes up arms and rampages through the muslim world, executing all those who mutilate the genitals of children.

Exactly, WHY is it done at all (circumcisions) to babies??

The "best" reason I've heard is that it MAY prevent sexually transmitted diseases..

Now, the best thing to tell them damn doctors (that make some $500$ for each cut foreskin) then is probably:

BABIES DON'T HAVE SEX! Therefore: Leave them alone.

Twinsenboy (imported) wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:28 am Exactly, WHY is it done at all (circumcisions) to babies?

I think there are two main reasons.

1. To make it harder for boys to masturbate.

2. Because it is profitable for physicians.

curious_guy (imported) wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:41 am I think there are two main reasons.

1. To make it harder for boys to masturbate.

2. Because it is profitable for physicians.

With profuse apologies in advance to curious guy in case he takes it in the wrong way, but I can't help noticing that number 1 above can be read two different ways. I think I'll just leave it at at that.

sensenbender (imported) wrote: Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:51 am With profuse apologies in advance to curious guy in case he takes it in the wrong way, but I can't help noticing that number 1 above can be read two different ways. I think I'll just leave it at at that.

I should have written:

To make it more difficult for boys to masturbate.