Statute of limitations applicable to my fraudulent circumcision

[admin]

I was cut in Michigan in 1962 at age 3 weeks. I don't know what the law was then. The law today says:
= = = =>
If action accrues (circumcision was completed) prior to minor's 8th birthday (mine did) and does not involve a reproductive injury (mine didn't) then a civil action must be brought by minor's 10th birthday or within 3 years of injury or within 6 months of discovery, whichever is later, but not more than 6 years after injury unless the injury was prevented from discovery by fraud 600.5851
<= = = =
One might claim that the general support for circumcision as normal and non-destructive was indeed medical fraud that could impede the discovery of the damage.

= = = =>
If, at the time claim accrues, the person has not reached his or her 13th birthday and claim involves an injury to the person's reproductive system, then a civil action must be brought by minor's 15th birthday or within 3 years of injury or within 6 months of discovery, whichever is later, but not more than 6 years after injury unless the injury resulted in the inability to procreate 600.5851
<= = = =
So in all my years of routine physical exams no doctor tells me I am missing a valuable part. That's fraud. But I can still make a baby, so any claim would have to be filed within 6 years of the procedure, IF my family had the decency to help me file by age 15 (or not - the general rule is the same 6-year limit for adults). Who on earth knows about their baby-making ability by age 15? And in what sane world is that the standard for whether or not ones penis is needlessly messed up?

I urge folks to look up the limitations for their jurisdiction. SINCE there is no way to seek redress for a fucked up procedure, it really supports banning the procedure until informed consent can be given.

[Guest]

Two resources come to mind: ARC (so maybe run this past them, or if you have to, buy a half hour with a local rep and see what he or she says); and/or you find out who serves as a locally-based expert witness in legal issues surrounding neonate malpractice, or more generally, issues surrounding surgery, and buy some time with them. This way you can go right to the point. The law and medicine are two different disciplines, of course, so they don't always (maybe don't often) align with each other.

The other thing to say is, as you know, the law provides a framework from which both sides (the law and medicine) make their interpretation of what that framework intended, vs how medicine is practiced on a daily basis, according to the prevailing medical knowledge base. In other words, even before the show starts there ain't nothin' chiseled in stone, and there's still an open debate on what circumcision does and doesn't damage from the medical viewpoint.

In still other words, what constitutes a specific claim of fraud (especially the "withheld information" aspect), vs medical malpractice (an action which doesn't follow that discipline's knowledge base) can be two very different issues, with very different definitions, and with a big, open interpretation gap between them.

I'm not a lawyer, but I had to know various facets of malpractice law as it rears its head in the clinic, so this is my opinion only, but not a completely clueless one.