Newborn circumcised by mistake; mom sues hospital

[Reboot]

The Money Times | September 15, 2010

A South Florida mother is suing a local Hospital and a doctor because her newly born baby boy allegedly was circumcised without the family's permission, according to multiple U.S. reports, citing a press release from the woman's lawyer.

The 30-year-old woman, named Vera Delgado, gave birth to her son Mario Viera in South Miami Hospital in August and told hospital staff members several times that she did not want Mario circumcised, reports ABC News.

Delgado says despite telling the hospital staff numerous times not to perform the procedure on her infant son, the doctors at the facility circumcised her son when he was still in the neonatal intensive care unit, according to the tabloid.

The new mother, who is unmarried and is Latino, says she went home briefly to take a shower and change her clothes eight days after giving birth to her son, Mario, who is now 4-weeks-old.

When Delgado returned she found the baby had been circumcised, by mistake.

The unmarried mom says even her baby daddy, who is of Cuban descent and helping to raise Mario, does not support the child circumcision.

"It's a big hospital," said Delgado. "It's a good hospital, and I thought he's safe, he's good there."

The 30-year-old woman, named Vera Delgado, gave birth to her son Mario Viera in South Miami Hospital in August and told hospital staff members several times that she did not want Mario circumcised, reports ABC News.

"I was crying. I spent that day and the next day crying," she told CBS4's Gio Benitez exclusively last Friday after the circumcision of the child.

Meanwhile, the hospital admitted that made a huge blunder and that staff members "misread" the consent forms, CBS4 says.

In a statement, the hospital said, "The baby's circumcision was an unfortunate mistake caused by a misread consent form. As soon as the error was discovered, the doctor and nurses let the family know what had occurred. We also immediately implemented new processes to ensure this mistake will not occur again.

"The procedure itself was performed following appropriate surgical guidelines and the baby didn't have any complications. Nevertheless, we're all deeply sorry that this happened."

But, Delgado says she's outraged because she culturally opposes the circumcision. However, it is turned out every man in Delgado's family is uncircumcised. It's a part of her family tradition, according to CBS4.

Now, Delgado is taking legal action against the hospital, not for a medical mistake, but for assault and battery on her newborn.

"I know they apologized and everything, but it's done, the damage is done," said Delgado.

In a statement, her lawyer Spencer Aronfeld said, "This is not medical malpractice. We are suing for battery, an unauthorized assault on this baby. They took a knife to him without his parent's permission."

"The baby was in neonatal intensive care with complications from a birth-related infection," added her lawyer. "They took the baby out and amputated healthy tissue from the penis in an irreversible procedure."

"It was horrific, quite frankly," said Aronfeld. "The parents were very explicit they did not want him circumcised, and [the hospital] had asked the parents repeatedly."

The lawsuit filed in Coral Gables Circuit Court is seeking for $1 million, citing battery and negligence.


More details:


South Miami Hospital faces lawsuit after accidental circumcision

Sun Sentinel | September 16, 2010

Vera Delgado says she was shocked when she learned last month that her infant son, Mario Viera, was accidentally circumcised without her consent at South Miami Hospital when he was 8 days old.

"Oh, my God," Delgado said. "How could this happen?"

No one in her family has been circumcised for years, she said.

"I didn't want this for him. I'm opposed to circumcision. They didn't have the right to do it."

The hospital has said it is "deeply sorry" and vowed to take steps to prevent the mistake from happening again, but Delgado says that's not enough. She filed suit against the hospital Monday and a criminal battery report with South Miami police Wednesday.

The case of the accidental circumcision quickly created controversy: Delgado's attorney was invited to speak at a national conference on crime victims and has been contacted by media as far away as the United Arab Emirates and anti-circumcision groups, including a local organization planning a demonstration at the hospital Friday.

"It's a big deal," Delgado said Wednesday, in her attorney's office. "In the future, he's going to ask why his dad is one way and he's different."

Delgado says she signed no consent form for the circumcision, and told doctors and nurses she didn't want it. The hospital said it misread a consent form.

Her Coral Gables attorney, Spencer Aronfeld, filed a civil personal injury lawsuit against the hospital in Miami-Dade Circuit Court on Monday, claiming unspecified damages, and a civil battery suit against Dr. Mary Jean Pazos, who Aronfeld said performed the circumcision. Pazos could not be reached for comment.

The boy at the center of the dispute is still less than 2 months old. Mario Viera was born at South Miami Hospital July 24, and kept in the intensive care unit to be treated for an infection, Delgado says. On Aug. 2, she says she entered his hospital room and noticed a vial lying beside him in his bed. A nurse told her it was Tylenol for the pain from his circumcision.

The hospital later apologized in a prepared statement: "The baby's circumcision was an unfortunate mistake caused by a misread consent form. As soon as the error was discovered, the doctor and nurses let the family know what had occurred. We also immediately implemented new processes to ensure this mistake will not occur again. The procedure itself was performed following appropriate surgical guidelines and the baby didn't have any complications. Nevertheless, we're all deeply sorry that this happened."

Male circumcision dates to antiquity, especially among Jewish and Muslim groups. Today, many medical groups take a neutral position on it.

In the United States, infant male circumcision peaked in the 1960s at about 75 percent and has dropped to under 60 percent today, according to the National Health and Social Life Survey and other sources. Newer studies suggest rates may have fallen to as low as 33 percent, said Dr. Lee Sanders, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

"As a practicing pediatrician, my rates have dropped steadily ever since 1999, when the American Academy of Pediatrics changed its position from positive to something more neutral," he said.

The AAP website today says: "Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the AAP to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised."

The American Academy of Family Physicians website takes a similar position: "Studies about the benefits of circumcision have provided conflicting results. The AAFP believes parents should discuss with their son's doctor the potential benefits and the risks involved when making their decision."

NOCIRC South Florida, a local anti-circumcision group, plans an all-day demonstration Friday at South Miami Hospital, according to member Enith Hernandez. The group's website, asnatureintended.info, calls infant circumcision "very painful" and "not medically necessary."

Georganne Chapin, president of Intact America, another anti-circumcision group that has contacted Aronfeld, said her group opposes the procedure even for religious purposes.

"Nobody has the right to remove a healthy body part from another person," she said. "Babies are not born with a set of religious beliefs." The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added to the controversy by initiating a process to come up with its own recommendation about infant male circumcision — with hints it might become more favorable to it because research has shown it can reduce the risk of HIV infection during sex.

Aronfeld, who spoke on the topic of circumcision at the annual conference of the National Center for Victims of Crime in New Orleans on Tuesday, said he is trying to not to express his own opinion on the procedure.

But he added: "So many people are opposed to circumcision," he said. "I think there's a groundswell here."

[Christopher Marlowe]

It is easily proven a battery. The question becomes that of damages. I don't think punitive damages are available, but I don't know Florida law and I'm too lazy to look it up. In CA you need to prove fraud, oppression or malice.  

Weighing in the plaintiff's favor would be the age of the baby, the sensitive area, and the family tradition.  The hospital will say that this is not a very painful surgery, that it is normal for male babies, and that the pain is short-lived. Also, while the surgery could be said to involve genital mutilation, most people do not display their sexual organs publicly.  Proving long term psychological damages would involve a clash of experts, and the court might find this too speculative.

Like 95% of these types of claims, there will probably be a settlement, and the hospital will try to keep the amount private. I believe part of the power in Personal Injury law practice resides in knowing how much a settlement is worth.  

I would hope that the amount is enough to put hospitals and their staff on notice that circumcision is no longer to be considered a "routine" practice.

[§N9sh2bj]

they make a big deal about female circumcision around here, anything to demonize the 'heathens'
yet not a word mentioned about cutting off the most sensitive and important part of the skin of the men (boys)
to have an important, bonding relationship with the woman.
there is a book out there, makes a convincing claim, 'Sex as nature intended it'

Notice, the 'crew' has had a hard time convincing those well-endowed african men to get circumcision ("AIDS PREVENTED BY CIRCUMCISION 50%+", knowing that 'AIDS' is just a continuation of bad sanitation, enforced poverty, bad nutrition), and have reverted to sending 900mil of the bailout funds to 'teaching them to clean themselves properly'... supposedly. It sounds more like it's ending up in some rabbi's pocket.

Thanks chris for the post. I'd limit it to an equitable claim without an attorney. If you claim at-law remedy then it's any guess what bone 'they'll throw you. Of course she will likely have one no wonder.