Influenced by infant's cries, man wants ban on circumcision

By JAMES WARDEN Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press - Saturday, May 21, 2005
BISMARCK, N.D.

Mervin Gajewski remembers hearing an infant's wails while he was having blood tests done in a Watford City hospital a few years ago.

"Somebody better help that baby. He sounds hurt," the 78-year-old Alexander man says he told a nurse. "You would be, too, if you were being circumcised," she replied.

When a friend's daughter chose to circumcise her son last year, Gajewski decided to sue, in an attempt to get North Dakota courts to ban circumcision. A judge dismissed Gajewski's case last week, but he said he intends to continue, perhaps with an appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

"I don't intend to be done with this case one way or another," he said.

Circumcision involves the removal of sensitive foreskin from the penis. The procedure is usually done on infants.

Nationally, about 56 percent of male infants are circumcised, according to a 2003 survey compiled by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Midwestern region, which includes North Dakota, had a 78 percent circumcision rate, which is the highest in the country, said CDC spokesman Bill Crews.

In a March 1999 policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics said there are "potential medical benefits" to circumcision, including a lessening of the risk of getting urinary tract infections. However, existing data "are not sufficient to recommend routine ... circumcision" of newborns, the statement says.

Gajewski says the reasons justifying the procedure are speculative, using the assumption that "somewhere down the line, it's going to be good for you."

"Surgery isn't done that way," he said.

Gajewski believes male circumcision is tantamount to genital mutilation. The Legislature made female genital mutilation a felony crime in 1995. Gajewski's lawsuit argued that courts should extend the ban to boys.

Northwest District Judge Gerald Rustad dismissed the case last week, saying Gajewski had no standing to bring the case. Gajewski was suing on behalf of North Dakota boys younger than 18, but he is 78 years old, and does not represent any young boys, the judge said.

"Although the topic is one which could result in interesting information and analysis in the proper forum, this court has not been presented any precedent which would persuade it that (Gajewski) has standing to bring the action," Rustad wrote in his dismissal order.

North Dakota's state and federal courts have taken up the issue previously.

Last September, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Fargo doctor who had circumcised an infant in March 1997. The boy's mother argued she was not told in detail about the procedure's benefits and potential risks.

The woman, Anita Flatt of Hawley, Minn., also had argued that North Dakota's law barring female genital mutilation did not offer equal protection to males. The Supreme Court said Flatt did not have standing to make that argument.

In June 1996, a Bismarck woman, Donna Fishbeck, made similar equal-protection arguments in a federal lawsuit against the state. Fishbeck's infant son had been circumcised with the consent of the boy's father, even though she objected to the procedure.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Conmy dismissed the case, ruling that Fishbeck did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit. A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Conmy's ruling in June 1997.

"Even if we were to declare the North Dakota statute invalid because it is underinclusive, and even if ... we could enter some kind of decree that would criminalize male circumcision, there is no assurance at all that the injury claimed by Fishbeck, either on her own behalf of on behalf of her son, would be redressed," the appeals court's decision says.

Circumcision opponents say the foreskin protects the penis and can enhance sexual pleasure. Gajewski, who is not circumcised, said those benefits are being taken away without reason.

"It's unnecessary and detrimental to a male," he said. "You destroy too much potential."

___________________________________________

Minot Daily News
(Minot, North Dakota) ,
March 19, 1999, page B1
by Jill Schramm, Staff Writer

Making the Cut
New recommendations on circumcision reflect
what local pediatricians already tell patients

Minot pediatricians won't be changing their advice to expectant parents in light of new recommendations on circumcision from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Local doctors said the information they have been giving out is similar to the new recommendations.

The American Academy of Pediatrics announced in a position statement March 1 that the medical benefits of circumcising newborns aren't significant enough to recommend it as a routine procedure. However, the group stopped short of advising against circumcision and suggested for the first time that newborns get pain relief.

In its last policy statement on the issue, in 1989, the academy said circumcision has potential medical benefits as well as risks and should be carefully explained to parents.

Dr. Roger Allen of Pediatric Associates in Minot said the practice of circumcising male newborns gained popularity in the mid-1980's after a study showing health benefits, such as reduced risk of urinary tract infection.

The pediatric academy found some medical benefits of circumcision, which it considered insignificant:

--Uncircumcised boys have a 1 in 1000 chance of getting a urinary tract infection in their first year of life: for circumcised boys the change is 1 in 1,000.

--Penile cancer occurs more often among uncircumcised males. But the disease is rare, striking just 1 in 1000,000 American males a year.

Local pediatricians agree the health benefits are insignificant, but they note the risks of doing the surgery also are small. About 1 in 100 circumcisions might result in a minor complication, such as bleeding or treatable infection.

Depending on the circumcision method, between 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 20,000 might result in a serious complication. Dr. Thomas Carver of Medical Arts Clinic said.

Three of the four pediatricians at Medical Arts perform circumcisions, and Allen said any of the doctors at Pediatric Associates will do them. Some family practice physicians and obstetricians in Minot also perform them.

Different Minot pediatricians report anywhere from fewer than half to 90 percent of infant male patients in their practices are circumcised. They also said the use of an anesthetic for the infants has been routine in Minot in the past several years.

Circumcision Opponents Disagree With Policy Statement

Jody McLaughlin of Minot, who has been active in campaigning against routine circumcision, was critical of the American Academy of Pediatrics acceptance of cultural and religious reasons for circumcision.

McLaughlin said acknowledging cultural factors runs counter to a 1996 federal law that criminalizes surgical alteration of female genitals as a cultural ritual. She also took issue with physicians performing nonmedical procedures, even with parental consent.

The academy's bioethics committee has taken the position that medical providers have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else wants, she said.

Minot pediatrician Roger Allen compared circumcision to elective plastic surgeries performed on children with parental consent.

"There must be understanding by the family that this is a cosmetic procedure." he said of circumcision.
________
Michael Larson, Editor The Minot Daily News
email: editor@minot.com 
PO Box 1150
Minot, ND 58702
News Dept.: (701)857-1950 or (800)735-3229 News Fax: (701)857-1961

_______________________________________________________