You said that the logic cuts two ways; indeed, perhaps even three. If a person discovers that the witnesses do not need to disclose other victims, they might shy away from seeking medical treatment for fear that they will be molested while they are unconscious. I find it difficult to believe that all other female patients of this doctor are unaware of this episode.

Discussion 1: I would want to know, although I do not know that I would pursue a tort remedy.

Discussion 2: As someone who was circumcised and managed to retain foreskin, does that I get emotional distress for trauma upon discovering that this is not, in fact, what circumcision usually entails, and that corrective surgery would be extremely painful at this point? More damages if I plan to convert to judaism and this complicates that process?

What a low-down piece of scum.

Shame on the judge as well. A total disgrace.

On Discussion item #1: I'd want to know, even outside the possibility of cash. I can handle the truth. In this context, it takes the power back from the pervert. I don't know how much cash would be appropriate since knowing wouldn't be about cash.

On Discussion item #2: Following this judge's logic, and what I've discussed repeatedly, sexual molestation of children would be acceptable as long as the child doesn't remember it. Still, we don't allow that. What additional piece(s) are we leaving out of the circumcision debate that are essential?

Either the individual has rights to his/her body or he/she doesn't. There's no footnote that exempts genitals from self-ownership.