A divorced father, James Boldt, who recently converted to Judaism, wants his son circumcised. But the ex-wife objected. Mr. Boldt has full custody of his son and lower courts gave him the go-ahead to snip the foreskin off the boy's male anatomy. The Oregon Supreme Court, however, has agreed to reevaluate the case and will hear arguments in November.
Four Jewish organizations have joined together in an amicus curiae brief supporting the father's right. That was no surprise, since they claim that “any decision to single out circumcision as a basis for questioning the fitness of the custodial parent would violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion."
The shocked mother is backed by Doctors Opposing Circumcision, which contends that the procedure is unnecessary and amounts to abuse. "Parents are free to practice their religion and to have religious beliefs, but they are not free to change the physical body of their child at will," the anti-circumcision group's executive director, John Geisheker, told The New York Sun.
Mr. Boldt claims his son wants to have the circumcision done. However, Mr. Geisheker notes that it is impossible to know whether the son's choice is being made freely.
We think not. Getting part of your penis snipped off at 12 years of age? There’s no way a young boy would make such a decision “voluntarily.”
The Jewish groups warned that a decision blocking the circumcision would encourage litigation over all sorts of medical procedures for children. "Surely a parent has the same authority to have a child's vision corrected or a birthmark on his face removed even if those procedures are also elective and even if the other parent objects," they wrote. "The Jewish experience with circumcision has shown that it is a safe and simple procedure with few complications."
The Jewish groups may not have read this autopsy report - death by circumcision. Nor may they have seen these images of botched circumcisions. (Warning – very strong images.)
The American Academy of Pediatrics has a very liberal position on circumcising newborns, no doubt influenced by religion and tradition in the U.S.: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.
Meanwhile, Doctors Opposing Circumcision just released a study saying that the glans penis in circumcised males is significantly less sensitive to fine touch than in intact males. George C. Denniston, M,D., MPH, President of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, commented, “This new study provided further evidence of the permanent and irreversible lifelong injury of non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision and raises grave ethical questions regarding the continued performance of child circumcision. We call upon the American Academy of Pediatrics to defend children from this practice.”
- Peter Rost, M.D. is a former VP of Pfizer and the author of Killer Drug and The Whistleblower.
I was trying not to write about Vfend, the Pfizer Inc. drug that makes you see wookiees from Star Wars, according to a new study . . . but here I am anyway. 
Other hallucinations included “ugly and unfamiliar” faces; scenic images of Montana; unfamiliar and silent people entering the room, and “beautiful places” seen from the vantage point of a passenger on a train. The visions appeared within 24 hours of starting the drug. 
