|
Day by Day
Press Coverage
On this page:
News Release
on Flatt Case,
Circumcision debate to open in Fargo,
The Forum, 12/8/02
Hospital
wants out of
lawsuit over circumcision,
The Forum, 12/19/02
Interests of child must be the priority,
Letter to Forum Editor
01/05/2003
New York Times: Circumcision
Opponents...
01/23/2003
Video at issue in court hearing, The
Forum
01/23/2003
Judge won’t allow images, The
Forum
01/25/2003
Also for articles on the Flatt v. Kantak trial, go to http://www.cirp.org/news/
where some are archived.
Judge won’t allow
images
By Jeff Baird
jbaird@forumcomm.com
The Forum - 01/25/2003
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/?id=26334
A judge ruled Friday graphic images of babies being circumcised will
not be allowed in a trial that could determine what hospitals have to
tell parents about the procedure.
The issue was the focus of intense debate at a Wednesday pretrial
hearing.
“MeritCare is very pleased that the court has recognized that this
case is about informed consent and not about whether male circumcision
should be allowed,” Merit-Care spokeswoman Carrie Johnson said in
response to East Central District Court Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger’s
written judgment. “The
decisions that Judge Rothe-Seeger made regarding the type of
information the jury will be allowed to see and hear center around
this fact.”
Anita Flatt of Hawley, Minn., is suing Dr. Sunita Kantak, Fargo-based
MeritCare Hospital and the state of North Dakota claiming she and her
husband, James, weren’t told complete and accurate information about
removing the foreskin from their son’s penis.
Anita Flatt signed a circumcision consent form, but hospital staff
didn’t describe the benefits or risks of the procedure, the lawsuit
says.
Defense Attorney Zenas Baer had argued at length Wednesday that
showing thevideos and tools used in circumcision were a critical part
of informed consent.
He said the Flatts wouldn’t have agreed to the procedure had they
known what it entailed.
Rothe-Seeger said Friday the videos differ from Kantak’s procedure “in
ways that relate to making the child comfortable for the surgery and
ensuring that there is no pain.
To allow them could confuse or mislead the jury, she said.
Baer said the decision will most likely add to the length of the trial
as he goes into “excruciating” details using words and sketches.
“Everyone knows that a photograph is worth a 1,000 words,” he said.
“It is very difficult to convey what a baby goes through just using
words. We will do our best to describe the pain, the agony, the
cutting, the crushing and removal of the healthy foreskin.”
Rothe-Seeger did allow Baer to amend his lawsuit to include MeritCare
Hospital.
The original lawsuit names MeritCare Medical Center as a defendant.
The medical center, however, is only the name of a building complex,
not a legal entity.
MeritCare lawyers argued Wednesday against amending the complaint
because MeritCare Hospital is not responsible for providing informed
consent.
It’s the doctor’s responsibility, and Kantak is employed by MeritCare
Medical Group.
But Rothe-Seeger allowed the change on a technicality. The person who
was served with the lawsuit represents both the hospital and MeritCare
Medical Group, she said.
The other minor victory for Baer was Rothe-Seeger’s decision to
consider Anita Flatt’s personal notes.
MeritCare alleges that it is routine practice to give parents a
pamphlet on circumcision.
But Anita Flatt claims she never received a booklet from the hospital
on circumcision.
If she had, she would have kept it because she kept such precise notes
and records on every other aspect of the birth.
“Since hospital documents and Anita’s handwritten notes go to the
issue of what information Anita received,” Rothe-Seeger wrote.
Both parties were optimistic Friday about the start of Monday’s trial.
“We continue to believe that Anita Flatt’s lawsuit against us is
defensible and without merit and are fully prepared to defend both Dr.
Sunita Kantak and MeritCare Hospital,” Johnson said.
Baer said while the judgment was not ideal he will move forward.
“We will have to rely on the good sensibility of reasonable people
from Cass County,” he said.
Readers can reach Forum reporter Jeff Baird at (701) 241-5535
____________________________________________
Video at issue in court
hearing
By Jeff Baird
jbaird@forumcomm.com
The Forum - 01/23/2003
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/?id=26334
A judge will rule Friday on the type of information a jury will be
allowed to see in a case that could decide what hospitals must tell
parents before circumcising boys.
Anita Flatt of Hawley, Minn., is suing Dr. Sunita Kantak, Fargo-based
MeritCare Medical Center and the state of North Dakota in East Central
District Court, claiming she and her husband, James, weren’t told
complete and accurate information about removing the foreskin from
their son’s penis.
Anita Flatt signed a circumcision consent form, but hospital staff
didn’t describe the benefits or risks of the procedure, the lawsuit
says.
Attorneys for Flatt and MeritCare spent much of a Wednesday pretrial
hearing arguing if a jury should be shown videos of circumcision as
well as the tools used in the procedure.
Hawley attorney Zenas Baer, who represents the Flatts, told Judge
Cynthia Rothe-Seeger the video and tools are necessary to show the
cruelty of circumcision.
Had his client known the procedure was so brutal – and provides no
medical benefit – she would never have agreed to it, he said.
“(Anita) didn’t know what was going to be done,” Baer told
Rothe-Seeger. “She had no idea there was a risk of death connected to
circumcision.”
MeritCare attorney Jane Voglewede said the case boils down to whether
Flatt was informed about circumcision – not how the procedure is done.
MeritCarebelieves Flatt was provided adequate information, she said.
Voglewede argued the video footage of circumcision could only “inflame
the jury.”
Rothe-Seeger asked Baer if he could adequately make his points using
expert testimony without showing video of the procedure.
“A picture is worth a thousand words,” Baer replied.
He said in order to make an informed decision about circumcision,
people need to know exactly what is done.
“This is about him (the Flatt’s boy) and what happened to him,”
Rothe-Seeger replied. “This is not about whether the people of this
county should be circumcised.”
Another issue debated Wednesday was MeritCare’s role in the lawsuit.
Angela Lord, another MeritCare attorney, argued the medical center is
not a legal entity and therefore can’t be sued. The name is merely a
trademark, not a facility, Lord said.
She argued it would be futile to allow Baer to amend the complaint to
include MeritCare Hospital, because the hospital is not responsible
for securing circumcision consent – the doctor is. Lord said Kantak is
an employee of MeritCare Medical Group, not the hospital.
Baer argued the hospital is not an “innocent bystander.” It provides
the room, tools and nurses, among other things.
“Dr. Kantak does not get informed consent alone,” Baer said following
the hearing. “She relies on the publications of the hospital, which
the nurses distribute.”
And the nurses also talk with the patient about circumcision to the
extent they are able, he said.
In this instance, the nurses’ information was more important because
Flatt claims she never got a booklet on circumcision, Baer said.
Rothe-Seeger decided Wednesday she would not divide liability and
damage claims, as she previously considered.
She said she would issue a written opinion on the other issues Friday.
If Rothe-Seeger does not allow the video, Baer said he will go into
“excruciating” verbal detail.
“I will try to give the jury as much detail as I can on how the skin
is crushed,” Baer said after the hearing. “And all for no reason.”
Readers can reach Forum reporter Jeff Baird at (701) 241-5535
__________________________________________________
The New
York Times
1/23/03
Circumcision
Opponents Use the Legal System and Legislatures
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/national/23CIRC.html?pagewanted=1&ei=1&en=ecc82a84bed22e3a&ex=1044321373
or >http://www.cirp.org/news/newyorktimes01-23-03/
By ADAM LIPTAK
FARGO, N.D., Jan. 16 [2003]--Josiah Flatt,
like about 60 percent of other newborn American boys, was circumcised
soon after he was born here, in the spring of 1997. Two years later,
his parents sued the doctor and the hospital.
They did not contend that the circumcision was
botched or deny that Josiah's mother, Anita Flatt, had consented to
the procedure in writing. They said, instead, that the doctor had
failed to tell them enough about the pain, complications and
consequences of circumcision, removing the foreskin of the penis.
The suit will be heard by a jury next month.
In declining to dismiss the case here before trial, Judge Cynthia
Rothe-Seeger acknowledged that the case was unusual in that nothing "went `wrong'
during the procedure." The main harm Josiah seeks compensation for,
Judge Rothe-Seeger noted, is "diminished sexual sensation injury."
The suit is but one effort by a small but
energetic group of loosely affiliated advocates and lawyers to use the
legal system to combat the practice - most American newborn boys
undergo the operation when they are days old - which they liken to
genital cutting in girls.
The advocates have been active in state
legislatures, too. Ten states no longer allow Medicaid to pay for
circumcision.
"They have reached the ears of legislators and
insurance companies," Dr. Thomas Wiswell, a professor of pediatrics at
the State University of New York at Stony Brook and a proponent of the
procedure, said about the opponents. "They are far more vocal than
proponents of circumcision."
J. Steven Svoboda, director of Attorneys for
the Rights of the Child, a group devoted to the issue, contends that
circumcision is wrong as a matter of law, medicine and philosophy.
Children of both sexes, Mr. Svoboda said, should be entitled to
"bodily integrity."
Josiah Flatt's case appears to be the first to
go to trial based on the theory that the absence of an exhaustive
medical briefing about the risks and benefits of circumcision is
tantamount to a lack of informed consent.
Among the possible complications in the
operation are excess bleeding, infection and ulceration and occasional
permanent damage to the penis.
"This could be a very important test case,"
said Geoffrey P. Miller, a professor of law at New York University who
has written about legal and cultural issues of circumcision.
Josiah's father, James, died in 2001 in an
automobile accident, but the boy's mother, Anita, 33, decided to
proceed with the suit. The family's lawyer, Zenas Baer, said no
sensible parent would willingly subject a child to circumcision
knowing what it entailed.
"The practice is absolutely barbaric," Mr.
Baer said.
The doctor who performed the circumcision,
Sunita Kantak, and representatives of the hospital, the MeritCare
Medical Center, issued this statement:
"Anita Flatt was given information about
circumcision, and she asked to have her son circumcised. The
circumcision was done because she requested it."
A hospital spokeswoman, Carrie Johnson,
declined to elaborate. In court papers, the hospital said the suit was
part of a crusade.
"This lawsuit is an attempt to abolish
circumcision in North Dakota of newborn males with healthy foreskin,"
the hospital's lawyers wrote. "Plaintiffs want to change public policy
so that only a competent male once he reaches adulthood, and not his
parent, should be able to consent to circumcision."
Only 3 in 1,000 men not circumcised at birth
choose to have the procedure, experts say.
David J. Llewellyn, a Georgia lawyer who
represents plaintiffs in circumcision malpractice cases, said the
hospital was correct in identifying what would be the next step for
opponents of the practice.
"The question of whether or not a parent can
consent at all will come rather quickly," Mr. Llewellyn said.
Judge Rothe-Seeger, who will preside over the
trial in Cass County District Court, seemed to agree in a pretrial
decision. She suggested that Josiah could sue his parents some day if
he could show that they failed to act in his best interests.
About 1.2 million newborns are circumcised in
the United States every year, at a cost of $150 million to $270
million, the American Academy of Pediatrics says.
Circumcision for other than religious reasons
is a relatively recent phenomenon in the United States. It began in
the late 19th century and peaked in the 1960's at 90 percent of
newborns. Circumcision rates vary widely. They are highest in the
Midwest, about 80 percent, and lowest in the West, under 40 percent.
The procedure is not common elsewhere. In
Canada, the rate is 17 percent and in Britain 5 percent. Elsewhere in
Europe, in South America and in non-Muslim Asia, the procedure is
rare.
There is powerful evidence, Dr. Wiswell said,
that circumcision helps prevent urinary tract infections, penile
cancer and sexually transmitted diseases, including H.I.V.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, in a
policy statement in 1999, said that the risks of infection and cancer
were low even without the procedure and that evidence on sexually
transmitted diseases was "complex and conflicting."
The academy noted that the procedure could
involve complications, as could any surgery. If performed without
adequate anesthesia, it is very painful.
The academy concluded that "existing
scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn
male circumcision."
"However," it added, "these data are not
sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."
It added that it was "legitimate for parents
to take into account cultural, religious and ethnic traditions, in
addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
Judge Rothe-Seeger wrote, "One of the earliest
purposes of circumcision was to limit sexual intercourse and to curb
sexual excitement."
It has also been prescribed through the years
as a remedy for alcoholism, epilepsy, asthma, gout, hysteria,
malnutrition, night terrors, clubfoot, eczema and promiscuity.
"Circumcision is a medical procedure in search
of something to cure," said Mr. Baer, the Flatts' lawyer.
In the last year, Arizona, Missouri, Montana
and North Carolina joined six other states - California, Mississippi,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon and Washington - that do not offer
Medicaid reimbursement for circumcision for any reason, including
religious beliefs.
David L. Gollaher, who wrote "Circumcision: A
History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery" (Basic Books,
2000), said that trend would "be the bullet that kills this thing."
"If people have to pony up a couple of hundred
bucks, at the margin, they won't do it," Mr. Gollaher said. "And
insurance coverage signals a certain attitude about medical
appropriateness or necessity."
There is little legal scholarship in the area.
That is partly attributable, Professor Miller said, to efforts
intended to prevent genital cutting in girls, a practice prevalent in
Africa that reduces sexual pleasure.
"It's all tied up in the politics of
feminism," he said. "Some feminists take offense at the idea that
there is any comparison between a highly damaging assault committed by
a patriarchal society and male circumcision. It's a dangerous topic to
get into."
In an interview, Ms. Flatt, who is a lawyer,
said she was told next to nothing about circumcision before she
consented to it. Asked what she wished she had been told, she grew
animated and her voice rose.
"It's healthy tissue," she said of the
foreskin. "It's useful. There's bleeding risk. There's pain. There's
infection risk. There's death risk. There's no medical benefit.
"You'd better give me a very good reason why,
and it's got to be more than he'll look like dad."
___________________________________________
News Release
on Flatt Case
Attorneys for
the Rights of the Child
2961 Ashby Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 Fax/Phone 510-595-5550
arc@post.harvard.edu
>www.arclaw.org
Circumcision Case to
Proceed to Trial
Berkeley, CA (July 29, 2002) – 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%.
______________________________________________
Circumcision debate to open in Fargo
>
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/?id=24445
By Steven P. Wagner
swagner@forumcomm.com
The Forum -
12/18/2002
A Cass
County jury could be the nation’s first to decide what hospitals must tell
parents before circumcising boys.
To make
their decision easier, Zenas Baer wants to show jurors taped footage of a
doctor removing the foreskin from a baby boy’s penis.
“This is
the practice I think is absolutely barbaric,” Baer said while preparing
for a pre-trial hearing today.
“What
parent would consent to do it? I don’t know of many who would after
receiving that information,” he said.
The hearing
will shape several legal issues for a landmark trial, likely the nation’s
first of its kind, slated to start Feb. 3.
Three years
ago, Anita and James Flatt of
Hawley,
Minn., filed a lawsuit on behalf of their son, now 5, against Dr. Sunita
Kantak, MeritCare Medical Center and the state of North Dakota, claiming
they weren’t sufficiently informed about the procedure.
If they had
known more about circumcision, they would have chosen to forgo it, Baer
said.
“Medical
doctors don’t tell the patient, or the parents, complete information about
the procedure,” he said.
“The
medical community is perpetuating these results in 50 percent of the
population … without the benefit of a medical diagnosis. There is no
medical reason to do it on a routine basis.”
The
hospital contends Anita Flatt was given information about circumcision and
gave doctors consent to perform the procedure.
“All
parents that have sons born at MeritCare are given information on
circumcision,” said hospital spokeswoman Carrie Johnson.
“This
information educates parents about circumcision and allows them to make an
informed choice that factors in their own personal beliefs and
preferences,” she said.
Angela
Lord, a MeritCare lawyer, deferred all questions to the hospital.
In court
papers, the hospital claims it doesn’t routinely recommend circumcision
and the Flatts requested it be done on their son.
Previously,
the Flatts’ claim about the legality of North Dakota’s law was dismissed
by a judge.
The Flatts’
son was born early March 6, 1997. That evening, a nurse asked Flatt to
sign a consent form for circumcision but didn’t describe the benefits or
risks of the procedure, according to the lawsuit.
At the
time, she was medicated for pain. The next day, Kantak spoke briefly with
her but didn’t discuss the benefits, risks or potential complications and
James Flatt was never consulted.
The
hospital, though, says Anita Flatt made the decision for her son before
Kantak circumcised him.
“She asked
to have her son circumcised,” Johnson said.
Flatt
understood the procedure and didn’t raise any questions to hospital staff,
she said.
Male
circumcision is both a medical procedure and a 4,000-year-old religious
practice sacred to Muslims and Jews.
Circumcising newborns causes virtually no medical harm, but offers
practically no benefit, either, according to a study published January
2000 in the journal Pediatrics.
Circumcision is thought to prevent urinary tract infections and penile
cancer. But the researchers found that for every complication from
circumcision, only six urinary tract infections are prevented. And for
every two complications, only one case of penile cancer is prevented.
“There is
no medical reason to do it on a routine basis,” Baer argues. He plans to
call national experts to support his client’s claim.
The
foreskin has more nerves per square inch than any part of the male body,
he said.
If someone
believes a child can be affected in utero, then circumcision must also
influence boys because their first penal experience is a painful one, Baer
said.
“Whenever
you have a painfully traumatic event, it’s imprinted in the brain,” he
said.
Another
issue Baer plans to point out is a doctor’s duty to act in the baby’s best
interest.
A baby
can’t consent to the procedure, and circumcision isn’t in a baby’s best
interest, he said.
According
to one estimate, 60 percent of male infants are circumcised in the United
States. Baer estimates 80 percent to 90 percent of baby boys in North
Dakota are circumcised.
Worldwide,
about 85 percent of men are uncircumcised, Baer said. The majority of
circumcised men live in the
United States,
he said.
“We are the
hotbed for genital mutilation of baby boys,” Baer said.
Nine months
before the Flatts filed the suit, the American Academy of Pediatrics
issued a policy statement saying the benefits of circumcision weren’t
significant enough to recommend it as a routine procedure.
Based on
cultural, religious and ethnic traditions, however, the academy said
parents should be given complete information about the potential benefits
so they can make an informed choice.
In 1996, a
federal judge threw out a similar lawsuit Baer filed in U.S. District
Court, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal.
The
district case differs from the federal case because it asks for financial
damages for the procedure performed on the boy, where the federal lawsuit
only wanted a ruling against the state law.
Since her
son’s birth, Flatt has begun working as a lawyer for Baer in his Hawley
office. Her husband was killed in a pickup accident last year.
East
Central District Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger will preside over the case
after Judge Georgia Dawson stepped down from the case. Dawson’s husband
sits on the hospital’s board of directors.
At today’s
hearing, Baer hopes Rothe-Seeger allows lawyers to question potential
jurors individually about views and family history on circumcision.
“This is
not an easy issue to talk about,” Baer said. “Most people don’t talk about
the condition of their penis. It is a taboo subject. As long as it’s kept
taboo, we won’t get beyond the barbarism.”
______________________________________________
Hospital wants out of lawsuit over circumcision
>http://www.in-forum.com/articles/?id=24445
By
Steven P. Wagner
swagner@forumcomm.com
The
Forum - 12/19/2002
Lawyers for Fargo’s MeritCare Hospital want their client dropped from a
circumcision trial before it heads to court.
Wednesday, attorney Jane Voglewede asked East Central District Judge
Cynthia Rothe-Seeger to order the change.
The
move, if ordered, would leave Dr. Sunita Kantak of MeritCare the sole
defendant in the case.
Anita
Flatt of Hawley, Minn., is suing the doctor and hospital, claiming she and
her husband, James, weren’t told complete and accurate details about
removing the foreskin from their son’s penis.
Anita
Flatt signed a consent form for circumcision, but hospital staff didn’t
describe the benefits or risks of the procedure, the lawsuit says.
The
procedure provides no medical benefit, argues their attorney, Zenas Baer.
Rothe-Seeger set several deadlines for lawyers to submit written requests
and share information. Once lawyers submit their motions, Rothe-Seeger
will oversee a final motion hearing before ruling on several legal issues.
Jury
selection begins Feb. 3 in what Baer says is the nation’s first trial of
its kind.
Baer
calls circumcision a “barbaric” practice and claims the hospital’s doctors
should have provided more information before the Flatts consented to the
procedure.
Kantak
circumcised their son, now 5, one day after he was born.
If the
couple had known more about the procedure, they would have chosen not to
do it, Baer said.
The
hospital contends Anita Flatt was given information about circumcision and
gave doctors her consent to perform the procedure.
“This
information educates parents about circumcision and allows them to make an
informed choice that factors in their own personal beliefs and
preferences,” hospital spokeswoman Carrie Johnson said earlier this week.
In
court Wednesday, Voglewede said the hospital wasn’t served with the
lawsuit.
She
denied comment after the hearing, avoiding questions about her request to
drop the hospital from the suit.
However, Baer said he opposes dropping the hospital from the lawsuit.
MeritCare was served with the suit, he said.
In
another twist, Rothe-Seeger said she may divide issues in the case to
separate liability and damage claims.
The
judge also told Baer to submit questions he’d ask potential jurors if they
were questioned individually and offer alternative ways to learn about
their beliefs and family history.
_________________________________________
Interests of child must be the priority
Letter to the Editor in the
Fargo Forum - 01/05/2003
>http://www.in-forum.com/articles/?id=25199
Steve Zimmerman's letter to the
editor, Dec. 22, says the decision to
perform surgery on a child is
between parents and physicians. Our legal
statutes agree with him only when
parents and physicians have the best
interest of the child in mind and
the surgery is necessary. This can only
happen when they are both
well-intentioned and have the facts right.
But no medical
organization in the world supports the routine circumcision
of infants. Why are so many doctors
and hospital administrators seemingly
ignorant of this fact? No one's
best interest is served by removing healthy, functioning tissue from a
non-consenting child. See:
BoysToo.com/quotes for further comments by
North Dakotans.
Duane Voskuil,
Ph.D.
Bismarck, N.D.
Flatt vs. Kantak
and Meritcare Legal Archive
Recent News |