• Full Story

Four-year-old hospitalised after botched circumcision

Print

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 2:28p.m.

The doctor severed an artery in the penis of a four-year-old boy during circumcision

The doctor severed an artery in the penis of a four-year-old boy during circumcision

A doctor who botched the circumcision of a wriggling four-year-old, severing an artery in the boy's penis, may face further disciplinary action, after a report by the Health and Disability Commissioner was released today.

The botched operation, which saw the boy require emergency hospitalisation, was performed at an unnamed medical centre in January by a general practitioner, assisted by a doctor unqualified to practice in New Zealand and the doctor's wife.

The commissioner's report recommended the doctor in charge of the operation review which patients he performed operations on - "giving particular consideration whether he should undertake circumcisions in boys aged older than six months".

"This case illustrates what can happen when a doctor is unfamiliar with, or chooses not to follow, recommended guidelines for a surgical procedure. It also highlights why patients (or their parents) need to be provided with adequate information so they can make an informed choice and give their informed consent."

The case was referred to the commissioners' director of proceedings, to decide whether action should be taken.

Copies of the report were also forwarded to the New Zealand Medical Council, which certifies doctors to practice, and the Ministry of Health.

On arriving at the medical centre, the parents and the young patient were directed to the waiting room, with the doctor busy performing a circumcision on another patient, a 14-year-old boy.

The family were concerned to hear the screams of the older boy.

The clinic's manager, and wife of the operating doctor, told them, although the 14-year-old had been given the maximum dose of morphine, he was "too sensitive and could not handle the pain", the report said.

The boy's mother told the commissioner the child was taken into the operating room, was given an injection, then cut into seconds later, before the painkiller had time to take effect.

Seeing her son in pain caused the mother to start crying, at which point she was ordered out of the room by the doctor, apparently for passing her anxiety onto the child and disturbing him. About 10 minutes later, the boy's father was also ejected from the room.

"We could hear our son crying for help and begging us not to leave him there by himself. He kept asking them to let us in but they wouldn't listen," she said.

After about an hour, the boy's father walked in to the operating room to see the doctor apparently talking to another doctor on the phone about how he didn't know what was going on. He saw the clinic manager and the unlicensed doctor were holding the boy "as if they were holding a wild animal", the report said.

About an hour-and-a-half after the boy went into the operating room, the doctors called an ambulance, due to uncontrollable bleeding.

The doctor, however, said the boy was subdued and calm, while the father complained of dizzy spells and became pale, and was asked to leave the room, lest he collapse during the operation.

He did admit the child became "extremely difficult to handle" and, due to the strength of the four-year-old's pelvic muscles, enlisted the aid of two people to hold him still.

"It's really difficult because the pelvic muscles are tough and the forearm muscles are not that strong," the doctor said.

NZPA
Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

05 Jan 2010 09:47a.m.

ivan wrote:

it should be the child choice because one day when he is a adult he would whish for a forskin and thats me if the goverment can banned smacking why not circumising cutting your dick hurts more than a smack

25 Dec 2009 12:30a.m.

Bill wrote:

Attempting surgery/cutting on someone who is resisting and wriggling is simply unacceptable. This quack needs the book thrown at him (deregistration). Cherie, why did whoever told you that it was necessary 3 years later, say it was necessary?

10 Dec 2009 01:45p.m.

cherie wrote:

Definition of mutilate from Encarta Dictionary for those misguided

1. to inflict SERIOUS injury on the body of a person or animal by removing or destroying parts of it.

2. to inflict serious damage on something.

That then to me would say an operation performed under general to help an individual is not mutilation.
Seeking this procedure by bad practising Drs yes that you would call mutilation bit as I said if people weren't treated so badly then maybe they would not do so.

10 Dec 2009 11:54a.m.

cherie wrote:

You guys are hilarious.
Nigel please do not attack my intelligence by saying that a procedure that "had" to be carried out is mutilation.
If you have a skin growth removed because if you don't you will die is that mutilation?
I in no way after being advised not to have it done but subsequently, told that it was necessary 3 years later, see myself as a mutilater of my son who was in dire need of this operation.
Unless you have experienced a child who is in this situation then I don't think you can really comment.
I suggest you sir are thinking with your uncircumcised brain!!

10 Dec 2009 12:06a.m.

Dave wrote:

Andrew and nigel, the fact you have to resort to insults and call me an idiot is laughable and proves you've failed to convince me with your arguments, and also proves you to be incapable of a civilized conversation, which is ironic considering the charges laid against me by both of you.

09 Dec 2009 09:38p.m.

Andrew wrote:

Of course, Dave. I’m concerned that your contribution to the debate has become progressively more scatological as you find yourself painted into a corner. Perhaps your meds have interfered with your focus.

09 Dec 2009 09:17p.m.

nigel wrote:

Dave I only introduced corporal punishment into this discussion as the principle of self defence, could be used to justify an assault on a schoolboy with a stick, as well as denounce an assault on a male child with a scalpel, an interesting and intriguing paradox that is all. Dave you cannot string a few vague statements together, throw in a bit of jargon, plagiarize my vocabulary and hope to be taken seriously! I understand your point to be, that it is ok to mutilate little boys penises without their permission, when there is no medical reason for doing so. I think as a society we should defend the sanctity of little boy’s penises, as little boy’s cannot defend themselves, from idiots like you!

09 Dec 2009 07:30p.m.

Dave wrote:

Andrew, you're quite at liberty to put me in whatever category you see fit, you've as much right to voice your beliefs as I do, I don't really care. Still, I stand by Sarah's point of view, although I will cross the floor by agreeing that yes, circumcision is mutilation, but I'll disagree on how people see the term 'mutilation' as being inherently bad. Nigel, I agree, war is only an ethical option when all other means have failed or self-defense becomes a necessity. Except in the case where a preemptive action is required. But again, you miss the point of what I've been arguing - the semantics of the term 'corporal punishment' point to physically reprimanding someone for inappropriate behavior, certainly in the sociological context at least. What you are describing is more akin to social justice.

09 Dec 2009 06:19p.m.

nigel wrote:

Dave when we go to war it is only justifiable in the context of self defence agreed? In schools bullies make war on the weak, illegitimate war. The weak have the right to protect themselves physically if necessary. If they are not strong enough to protect themselves, they have the right to adequate protection from those responsible for their welfare. In this way corporal punishment is self defence. Only in these circumstances is corporal punishment morally permissible, further even a moral obligation. Self defence encompasses the primary argument for not cutting bits of little boy’s privates. Little boy’s privates are theirs to do with as they wish; they do not belong to you Dave or Sarah or Cherie. It is not up to you to mutilate them unless there is a bona fide medical reason and if you do mutilate them for any other reason you are assaulting them, in a most gruesome fashion I might add. I think you should see to your own privates and let other people see to theirs, particularly little boys! Sarah you are arguing semantics, if you cut a piece of your body off you are mutilating yourself, whether you think it is attractive or not it is nonetheless a mutilation. Put it this way if I see a duck it will remain a duck no matter how often I call it a chicken or a hippopotamus or even a silly cow.

09 Dec 2009 06:06p.m.

Andrew wrote:

Dave, I have to go along with Nigel and put you into the same category as Cherie. Introducing corporal punishment and voluntary procedures has no connection whatsoever with the issue. We are simply not interested in the hows, only in the whys. Medical necessity aside, it seems to come down to cultural baggage and the right of parents to choose. All this seems to make a strong case for regulation.