Posted on 08/02/2002 12:56:18 PM PDT by Jean S
Berkeley, CA - This month, North Dakota District Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger denied a motion for summary judgment by defendants in the Flatt v. Kantak circumcision case, and decided it will proceed to trial on February 3, 2003. The precedent setting decision confirms that a baby who is circumcised can sue his doctor when he reaches age of majority, even if there was parental consent for the circumcision, and even if the results are considered to be 'normal.'
"This is the latest in a series of warnings to doctors who still circumcise: proceed at your peril, because even if you get parental consent and do a standard job of the circumcision, the child can still grow up and sue you for taking away part of his penis," says lawyer J. Steven Svoboda, executive director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC).
Like the on-going William Stowell case in New York, this case would be a breakthrough in establishing that circumcision is litigious even where there is no "botch" and "consent" is given, but there are problems with the "consent." In this case, the mother was not informed about the procedure prior to signing the "consent" form. Plaintiff Flatt's attorney Zenas Baer says, "There will be a nine-person jury hearing this precedent setting case. I am optimistic we will be able to have the "informed consent" issue decided by the jury. "
Svoboda said, "This is the second significant legal victory this year, after the case of William Stowell also survived summary judgment and is proceeding to trial. Both cases will establish that, even where the procedure is performed at the professional standard, a circumcision is litigious if the consent is not informed."
Baer added, "The court also observed that, in an informed consent case, the type of information to be disclosed to a parent is a 'standard set by law for physicians rather than one which physicians may or may not impose upon themselves.' This is a huge statement and will put the physicians in their place if we can convince nine reasonable people that the physicians failed to give adequate information."
Marilyn Milos, Director of NOCIRC, an organization that seeks to end routine infant circumcision in North America, says, "Female genital mutilation has been outlawed, and we need the law to set the standard here, too, followed by aggressive educational programs. Parents and doctors need to know that this is a harm that lasts a lifetime."
Svoboda stated "The foundation is well laid for lawsuits. Doctors who are still doing circumcisions are already investing in a lot of trouble, and this case will make their troubles worse. They just have to wait 18 years until that baby grows up, and they're in for a lawsuit. An army of lawyers will be there with this precedent and many more in their arsenal."
This landmark case brings into question whether a physician can remove healthy, normal tissue from unconsenting minors for non-therapeutic reasons, and whether a parent can legally consent to a medically non-indicated surgery for a minor child. Svoboda is convinced that this case will have a major impact on circumcision in the U.S. "Doctors ignore a lot of medical literature," he said, "and they ignore the screams of the babies, but they listen when they hear the word 'malpractice.' As a lawyer willing to sue, I' ve never had a doctor not listen to me."
Arizona and Missouri have recently dropped Medicaid funding for circumcision, joining six states, and other states are considering similar steps. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) first acknowledged that there was no medical justification for routine circumcision in 1971. In 1999, the AAP reaffirmed that it does not recommend routine circumcision. The American Medical Association concurred in 2000, calling routine circumcision "non-therapeutic." No national or international medical organization recommends routine circumcision. The United States is the only country that continues to circumcise the majority of its newborns for non-religious reasons. As parents have become more educated about the surgery, the circumcision rate in the US has fallen to 57%.
For More Information Contact:
Zenas Baer, J.D.
Attorney for Joshiah Flatt,
218-483-3372,
zbaer@zbaer.com
J. Steven Svoboda, J.D. Executive Director,
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child,
510-595-5550
arc@post.harvard.edu
www.arclaw.org
Marilyn Milos, RN Director,
NOCIRC,
415-488-9883,
nocirc@cris.com
www.nocirc.org
No, don't sue your parents. Sue the professional who pierced your ears, who should have known better than to let your parents make decisions regarding their own minor child.
More support here.
--Boris
Waiting for the time when an abortion victim can sue.
Circumcision Scars On Neck
it will grow up to be an attorney.
Nahh, attorneys are no where near that useful!!!!
Now this is JUSTICE !
A Charlotte, NC lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars and then insured them against fire among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars, the lawyer filed a claim;against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires."
The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.
The lawyer sued and won! In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The Judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be "unacceptable fire," and WAS obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the "fires."
NOW FOR THE BEST PART.
After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!
With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and he was sentenced to 24 months in jail and ordered to pay a $24,000 fine.
NOTE: This is a true story was the 1st place winner in the Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.
The PETA crowd would not mind kosher slaughter techniques so long as it was Jews being slaughtered not animals.
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.