Monday, August 12, 2002

The word Every once in a while someone agrees with me.  "Blog" sounds to me like someone sloggin' through the bog. . . 9:03:47 PM    comment [] Challenge to fetal protection law The Detroit Free Press reports that an Oakland County Circuit judge is considering a defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of Michigan's new law providing a criminal penalty for injury to a fetus  based on a wrongful act against "a pregnant individual".  The statute was originally enacted in 1998, but was successfully challenged on the basis of its reference to the "death" of the fetus.  The current version prohibits acts which "result in a miscarriage or stillbirth by that [pregnant] individual or death to the embryo or fetus".  The defendant claims that the statute is contrary to Federal case law protecting a woman's right to abortion.  In our view, this statute protects the integrity of both the woman and her fetus, and has nothing to do with the abortion issue.  The loss of a wanted pregnancy is surely a loss that the law has the right to try to prevent.  Except in the situations where the U.S. Supreme Court says it cannot do so, the Legislature has the power to protect and preserve the life of a fetus.  There are numerous other statutes which serve the same interest: 333.2685    Use of live human embryo, fetus , or neonate for nontherapeutic research 333.2690    Sale, transfer, distribution, or giving away of embryo, fetus , or neonate 750.90g      "Infant protection act" The criminal statutes in question -- 750.90c    Gross negligence against pregnant individual as crime 750.90e    Conduct as proximate cause of accident involving pregnant individual A related civil liability statute is found at MCL 600.2922a, and applies to negligent or other wrongful acts occurring after May 1, 2002. 8:07:08 PM    comment [] Making the early cut A North Dakota man's lawsuit against a physician who performed a circumcision shortly after he was born will proceed to trial in February 2003.  On Long Island, William Stowell has filed a similar lawsuit against the Good Samaritan Hospital of West Islip, based on the theory that the procedure has diminished sexual pleasure for himself and for his partners.  The Stowell case appears to be proceeding with the aid of research by a "foreskinologist" named Kristen O'Hara, who has published a study on female sexual response to sex with circumcised vs. uncircumcised men.  An article states: "Stowell is just a test case for a new niche of personal-injury caselaw being carved out by Atlanta lawyer David Llewellyn, who has become to the anti-circumcision camp what Johnnie Cochran is for celebrities accused of horrendous, made-for-TV crimes. More than a decade since the first "wrongful circumcision" case, Llewellyn has been increasingly successful at winning settlements ($65,000 in a 1995 case, for example) and blocking unwanted circumcisions.                    *       *      * "But Llewellyn wants his pound of flesh. [emphasis added!] He’s hoping that the Stowell case goes to trial so he can use it as a pulpit to spread the anti-circumcision gospel. For a circumcised guy like me, talking to Llewellyn for even a few minutes was a remorseful trip through a sex life that might have been." What, pray tell, would be the measure of damages for a "sex life that might have been"? Two organizations involved are Attorneys for the Rights of the Child and the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC).   We have no quarrel with those who criticize circumcision as a routine procedure for infants in a non-religious venue.  But the fact of the matter is that the standard of care twenty and thirty years ago called for offering circumcision as an option to parents of newborn males, and today the option is still commonly offered.  Personal injury litigation is not the proper milieu for the advancement of medical/ideological issues, in our view.  6:38:38 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2002 Franco Castalone. Last update: 9/8/2002; 3:49:30 AM.