Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

SOUTH CAROLINA: Malpractice trial after intersexed infant castration

The Post and Courier (South Carolina)
May 25, 2015

Lawyers prepare for medical malpractice trial in rare ‘intersex’ lawsuit

by Lauren Sausser
A Richland County jury may decide later this year if the Medical University of South Carolina, Greenville Health System and the state child welfare agency are guilty of medical malpractice for removing a baby’s penis before he turned 2 years old.

Pam and Mark Crawford say surgeons in Charleston and Greenville performed unnecessary sex assignment surgery on their son — named M.C. in court records — when he was 16 months old. M.C. was born with both male and female reproductive organs [or rather, with reproductive organs that were not clearly male or female], but “there was no medical necessity to remove any of his genital tissue,” his adoptive parents said in their lawsuit.

Doctors should have let M.C. eventually choose a gender for himself, they contend.
“Our client’s penis was surgically removed for no medical reason. He’s going to have to live with that for the rest of his life,” said attorney Anne Tamar-Mattis, the legal director for Advocates for Informed Choice. “No surgery he can get can give him back what he lost.”

The Crawfords adopted M.C. from state custody after the S.C. Department of Social Services approved surgery that made him biologically female [no, only "ostensibly female"]. But it soon became clear, his mom said, that M.C. wanted to be a boy [or rather, felt himself to be a boy] — a decision his adoptive parents respected.

“He made the social transition with the name change at 7,” Pam Crawford said. “He’s just like any other boy. He’s been very well accepted in the community and the school and it’s really just not been an issue.”

The Crawfords, who live in Columbia, filed federal and state lawsuits two years ago against MUSC, Greenville Health System and DSS.

The court dismissed their federal lawsuit in Charleston earlier this year. Defense lawyers successfully argued that doctors weren’t aware when they operated that they may have violated M.C.’s civil rights.


... on January 26, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.  The Fourth Circuit stated that it did not “mean to diminish the severe harm that M.C. claims to have suffered” but that a reasonable official in 2006 did not have fair warning from then-existing precedent that performing sex assignment surgery on sixteen-month-old M.C. violated a clearly established constitutional right.
Bill of Health, March 5, 2015

“It’s not clear if a different court in a different time in a different place would have decided it the same way,” Tamar-Mattis said. “The court did not rule if they did, in fact, violate his civil rights. They left that question open.”

MUSC attorneys would not comment on this case specifically, but a spokeswoman for the hospital said, “If at any time there is controversy or disagreement about a care plan, the case can be referred to that ethics committee for a decision.”

A spokeswoman for Greenville Hospital System declined to comment on the case.
Meanwhile, the state lawsuit in Richland County is moving forward. DSS denies the allegations, court records show. The case may be tried by a jury sometime after Nov. 15.

“We do feel that our case is strong,” Tamar-Mattis said. “A lot more will come out at trial.”
This may be the first public case of its kind, she said. Similar lawsuits have been settled privately out of court in other states.

“The reason we’re doing this is so some change is made. That’s really what we see as what’s important,” Pam Crawford said. “To make a settlement and make it a private thing, it’s not what we want to accomplish with this.”

They also want money to pay for treatment that M.C. will need during and after puberty, but the Crawfords have not named a specific amount in their lawsuit. They don’t yet know what his treatment will entail or how much it will cost.

“We monitor him in terms of hormone levels, maybe once a year,” Pam Crawford said. “I don’t think there’s a specific set date (for treatment) ... but it’s coming up in the next couple years.”

M.C., now 10 years old, may testify at the trial, but he’s not overly preoccupied with the lawsuit, his mom said.

“We’re certainly not hiding it from him, but it’s not a huge concern for him,” she said. “I don’t know how much he understands of it — not all.”

The specific intersex condition he was born with, called ovotesticular disorder of sexual development, is rare. It only affects one in 83,000 infants, but an estimated one in 2,000 children are born with genitals that are “visibly intersex,” the World Health Organization reports.

“It’s something like 5 percent every year are born with genetic bodies, sexual bodies that operate differently than we’re used to,” said Alison Piepmeier, director of women’s and gender studies at the College of Charleston. “Five percent, that’s significant.”

Gender is based on several complex variables, she said, and children should be allowed time and space to express who they really are. Luckily, she said, society is talking more openly about gender identity than ever before.

“I’m seeing college students, some that I know and many that I don’t know, who are beginning to recognize themselves in a different way,” Piepmeier said. “In the last 10 years ... it’s far more visible. We’re still perhaps a little uncomfortable by it, but I’m seeing that less and less, especially among people who are younger.”

Earlier story

Monday, April 14, 2014

SOUTH CAROLINA: Intersex child castration case to proceed

wyff
April 10, 2014

DSS loses motion to delay case of intersex child

Child indentifies himself as a boy, despite surgery to remove genitals
GREENVILLE, S.C. —A case that accuses the Department of Social Services and medical care givers of performing unnecessary sex-assignment surgery on an intersex baby will proceed.

The decision of the 5th Judicial Circuit Court to let the case continue means the defendants will have to defend their choice to castrate the baby, who has since grown into a healthy 8-year-old who identifies himself only as a boy, named in court documents as M.C.

“The court’s decision moves M.C. a step closer to justice,” said Kristi Graunke, Southern Poverty Law Center senior supervising attorney. “This ruling holds doctors accountable when they recommend such drastic and irreversible procedures for infants but fail to ensure caregivers are fully informed about the risks and options.”

M.C. was born with an intersex condition -- a difference in reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t fit the typical definition of male or female. When he was just 16 months old and in the care of the South Carolina Department of Social Services, doctors and department officials decided the child should undergo sex assignment surgery to make M.C. a girl.

“Our young client was profoundly harmed when doctors and state agents decided to remove his penis and testicles,” said Anne Tamar-Mattis, co-counsel from Advocates for Informed Choice. “We look forward to continuing the fight on M.C.’s behalf and to ensuring that no child ever has to undergo such life-altering surgeries without informed consent.”

The plaintiffs say DSS and medical staff made the decision even though there was no way of knowing at such an early age whether M.C. would grow up to be a male or female.

The lawsuit, filed by the child’s adoptive parents, claims the defendants did not even provide a hearing to determine whether the procedure was in M.C.’s best interests.

Named in the suit are the Department of Social Services, the Medical University of South Carolina, Greenville Health System and several other caregivers.

M.C. was born a premature twin at Greenville Memorial Hospital in November 2004. The biological parents would not take them home. One baby died. M.C. was abandoned in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

Three months later, the Department of Social Services stepped in. Court records show the biological parents relinquished their rights.

Mark and Pam Crawford were looking to adopt a child with special needs. They would come to love M.C., but by the time they entered the picture, there was nothing they could do. The life-changing surgery was already done.

Pam Crawford said, "We looked at the situation, saw how adorable the child was, and said, 'We can do that.' It didn't really seem like such a special need to us."

Court records indicate that at birth, M.C. was identified as a male. During a reflux surgery, female organs were discovered. Doctors at the Greenville Hospital System concluded the baby was a "true hermaphrodite."

They referred the case to the Medical University of South Carolina where ultimately, sex re-assignment surgery was performed in April 2006 on the then 1-year-old.
...

"It's too late for my son, but we want to put other doctors on notice," said Mark Crawford who noted the action was "drastic and permanent."

The lawsuit says doctors, acting as agents of defendant hospitals, performed the surgery for the purpose of "assigning" the child the female gender despite their own conclusion that the toddler "was a true hermaphrodite but there was no compelling reason that she should either be made male or female."

The defendants decided to remove the child's healthy genital tissue and "radically restructure his reproductive organs in order to make his body appear to be female," the lawsuit states.

The suit filed in federal court alleges the defendants violated the child's right to privacy by deciding to go forward with the surgery. The state suit alleges medical malpractice and gross negligence.
...

Once the child was placed in state custody, the Department of Social Services was responsible for any and all medical decisions. By law, major surgery is something that should have gone all the way to the top.

Within months of M.C.'s surgery, the DSS director at the time, Kelly Aydlette, left her post. She's named in the lawsuit, along with DSS, four doctors and two hospitals.

According to court documents, the decision to turn M.C. into a girl never went before a judge.

No guardian was appointed. And it does not appear the doctors requested an ethical consultation.

Bioethicist Carmela Epright said, "I suspect strongly the reason this didn't go before a judge is because no one thought this was a hard question. They thought they had the answer."
...
.

"He wasn't sick in any way. What he was, was a problem from an adoption standpoint," Epright said.
That being said, Epright doesn't believe the Crawfords will win in court.
...

"When he started going to school, picking up friends, it was clear that he thought of himself as a boy," Pam Crawford said.
...

"It's not like he turned into a boy," she said. "He's the same exact child he's always been."

For the rest of his life, M.C. must live with a choice made for him by strangers. The only thing he got to choose was his new name.

The Crawfords hope his story will help other families understand that surgery isn't the only option.

"My greatest fear is that these things might keep happening, Crawford said, "My fear for him specifically is that he will hate his body."
...
 
Dr. William F. Schmidt, medical director of the GHS Children's Hospital, sent WYFF a statement saying, "A thorough review of the medical files will show that treatment this child received while under our care was consistent with the highest standards of medical practice and medical ethics." [Well he would say that, wouldn't he?]

Earlier story

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

CALIFORNIA: Class action against foreskin product for cancer risk

Foreskin product poses health risk

The Wall Street Journal
March 19, 2014

Hagens Berman: Pharmaceutical Company SkinMedica Selling Misbranded Drug Products as Cosmeceuticals

Consumers today filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Allergan Inc. (NYSE:AGN) and its pharmaceutical company subsidiary, SkinMedica, claiming that the companies have misbranded and unlawfully marketed Tissue Nutrient Solution (TNS), a skin-care product line containing human growth factors obtained from human foreskin tissue which could increase the risk of cancer and pose other health risks, according to the complaint filed by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLC.

The lawsuit, filed by consumer-rights law firm Hagens Berman in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, claims that for at least the past four years, SkinMedica has failed to disclose significant safety concerns associated with TNS products while marketing the products without appropriate government approval, proper labeling, or adequate safety studies.

"A healthcare company's primary obligation must be to deliver products that are properly tested for safety, and meet all the appropriate regulatory requirements," said Steve Berman, attorney for the plaintiffs and managing partner of Seattle-based Hagens Berman. "In this case, we intend to show that SkinMedica and Allergan skirted laws that required them to disclose the significant safety concerns at issue and the lack of regulatory approval."

"We believe that in SkinMedica's zeal to market its skin care products, it created a serious health risk for those who used TNS products," Berman added.

According to the firm's investigation, SkinMedica's TNS products, which have been sold nationally through doctors' offices and retailers, contain a proprietary mix of "human growth factors" derived from human foreskin tissue. Human growth factors are intended to mobilize, stimulate, or otherwise alter the production of cells, including the ability to initiate cell division, which could stimulate growth of cancerous tumor cells, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges that in marketing their TNS products, Allergan and its subsidiary SkinMedica did not adequately disclose the health risks associated with these growth factors.

SkinMedica's TNS products -- which the company calls "cosmeceuticals" -- did not have government approval and could not be sold lawfully in the U.S. without such approval, something else the company did not disclose to consumers, according to the complaint. The suit alleges that because neither the U.S. Food and Drug Administration nor the California Department of Public Health found TNS products to be safe for their intended use, and because TNS products omit required disclosures relating to safety concerns, the products have been misbranded under both federal laws and parallel state laws.

The lawsuit is a proposed class action based upon California's consumer protection laws, and seeks to represent a class of all persons in the U.S. who purchased SkinMedica's TNS products during the last four years.

Concerned consumers are encouraged to contact Hagens Berman by emailing SkinMedica@hbsslaw.com or calling 206-623-7292.
...

Sunday, March 17, 2013

OAKLAND: More than $80 million paid out for botched circumcisions

Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
March 16, 2013

More than $80,000,000 paid out for botched circumcisions


by Hugh Young

More than 80 million dollars have been paid out in settlements for botched and wrongful circumcisions since 1985, according to Attorneys for the Rights of the Child.

It has been compiling a list of cases since 1997 and first published it today.

They range from $22.8 million to a boy in Atlanta, Georgia who was severely burnt, down to $30,000 to a Palm Beach, California, boy who lost more than his foreskin to a mohel.

Two of the cases, totalling $18.3 million, were won against Mogen Circumcision Instruments Ltd, makers of the Mogen clamp. The company has gone out of business, but the Mogen clamp is still being used.

The number of botched circumcision cases that were settled out of court is unknown. The number that were successfully blamed on something else, such as an undiagnosed pre-condition or poor aftercare, is also, of course, unknown.

In its 2012 circumcision policy, the American Academy of Pediatrics said, "The majority of severe or even catastrophic injuries are so infrequent as to be reported as case reports (and were therefore excluded from this literature review)" before concluding (without actually weighing them) that "the benefits outweigh the risks".

Sunday, January 6, 2013

TURKEY: Boy loses penis in circumcision

Hurriyet Daily News (Turkey)
January 2, 2013

Child's penis cut off in circumcision feast, family claims two million TL compensation

The family of a 3-year-old child whose penis was cut off during a collective circumcision feast in the southeastern province of Batman has demanded 2 million Turkish Liras [$US 1,120,000] in compensation from the Ministry of Health by applying to the Council of State.

The family of the boy sued the ministry in Batman's administrative court after the incident two years ago, with the local court awarding 600,000 Turkish Liras [$US 337,000] in damages.

However, not satisfied with this amount, the family is claiming that the boy may require further treatment, including treatment abroad. It is also claimed that the circumcision was not performed by a qualified doctor, but rather an unqualified member of hospital personnel.