Skip to comments.Nigerian cleared over circumcision death (Ireland)
Posted on 10/07/2005 11:12:54 AM PDT by Murtyo
A Nigerian man accused of reckless endangerment in relation to a home circumcision he carried out in Waterford two years ago has been found not guilty.
Osagie Igbinedion was found not guilty this afternoon by a jury of 10 men and two women at Waterford Circuit Court.
31-year-old Mr Igbinedion, who lives in Kilkenny, left the court this afternoon in the company of his wife Kathleen, who a few minutes earlier had burst into tears as the verdict was delivered.
It had taken the jury one and a half hours to reach their verdict in this case, the first of its kind in Ireland.
The court had been told 29-day-old Collis Osaighe had died from haemorrhage and shock due to bleeding. He had been circumcised a number of hours previously by Mr Igbinedion.
In directing the jury, Judge Kevin Haugh said that they could not bring what he called their white western values to bear when they were deciding this case.
Afterwards, Mr Igbinedion said he would like to continue carrying out circumcisions but will only do so if allowed to by the Government. He said most Nigerians would like to see the procedure being available and done in hospitals.
Multiculteralism rears it's ugly head.
It is quite possible that the jury made the right decision, for the right reasons. But what the judge said is totally absurd.
true, from this report we don't know the details of the case and I agree, the judge saying that was idiotic.
Holy crap! What is this world coming to. The unenlightened, third world nations are now allowed to dictate their primative values to the more sophisticated nations.
Huh? Does that mean that circumcision is *not* legal in Ireland? I know that declawing cats has been outlawed in England ... have they applied similar logic to circumcision in Ireland? Anyone know?
Agree with the "white western values" comment, btw. They had better wake up over there. Some values -- such as not allowing infants to die avoidable deaths -- are universal.
The guy performed a surgical procedure,without the benefit of a medical degree,on a guy who died! That may or may not be the way it's done in Nigeria,but one would think that an advanced (well,scientifically advanced,at least) nation like Ireland would insist on slightly higher standards.
So the judge will have no problem with my prescribing drugs and performing medical procedures on my buddies?
Judge Kevin Haugh: "Now remember you guys, no bringing your white western common sense to bear while deciding this case."
Based on the judge's reasoning, I guess South Asians are now free to practice suttee.
"29-day-old Collis Osaighe had died" - victim was no infant. Circumcision is not illegal, you just need to be doctor to operate on people there.
that all depends on your "values".
I would call a baby less than a month old an infant! 29 DAYS old!
Puncturing a daughters ears is also technically a "surgical procedure". If the child dies from a resultant ear lobe infection, is that also "reckless endangerment"?
I'm not equating the danger of both procedures, but just pointing out that home surgery doesn't necessarily equal reckless endangerment.
Does the law require that the man himself believed he was recklessly endangering his patient? Or does the law instead hang on whether a "reasonable man" would believe what he did was recklessly endangering? The law could have been written either way.
How risky is doing it at home, was the fellow just especially unlucky? (this was required by jewish law for thousands of years before modern science) Did he apply anti-biotic ointment or take other sterilization precautions?
Uhhh... Most Europeans are not circumcised. Never have been. It's more an American, African and Jewish thing.
OK,I'll just ask you this:would you allow a member of your family to have his/her teeth cleaned by an individual who lacked a dental degree or a dental hygienist certificate/ license?
"Home circumcision" whould be a criminal phrase, IMHO.
"whould" should be "should", of course.
Not all questionable, or even simply bad decisions, rise to the level of criminal reckless endangerment. People die from even simple procedures in sanitary environments with thoroughly certified individuals. Conviction would depend on how the law was written, and the particulars of what exactly took place.
Every parent makes a long list of questionable, and even bad decisions during the course of raising their child. It's not unreasonable for a jury to give a parent the benefit of doubt when evaluating their motives and actions. All depends on the particulars of the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.