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. MeritCare believes 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.”
posted on February 6, 2003 03:17:19 PM new
I am adamantly opposed to circumcision without medical necessity! I've read about the small number of babies each year that loose part or all of their penis' to botched circumcisions. There's an even larger number that loose all nerve inputs and sensations or partially, other than the lose of the tissue itself. If you've ever seen what a circumcision looks like, you'd realize what a barbaric religious practice that this is. God can tell His own without penile mutilation!
What kind of a parent would consent to such a thing if they knew how it was? Doctors ALWAYS tell the parent that babies can't feel much pain during the operation and that it is a medical necessity to keep the penis from getting dirty and infected. Both of those excuses are lies.
posted on February 6, 2003 03:33:27 PM new
Gee thanks Borillar
I have seen a circumcision before. I can also tell you I know an adult who had it done in his 20's and he had wished his parents did it when he was a baby. He had to take a week off of work and pay out of pocket $2000 for the circumcision.
We don't have to realistically cut our hair either- but we do it to fit in with everyone else.
My only beef was that it is a crazy thing to sue over- after 5 years! What did she just wake up one day and realize it?
[ edited by nharmon on Feb 6, 2003 03:35 PM ]
posted on February 6, 2003 08:58:09 PM new
From: BBCnews.com (BBCnews:health:backgroundbriefings:AIDS)
Wednesday, 1 September, 1999, 07:32 GMT 08:32 UK
Circumcision cuts HIV risk
Aids prevention efforts at a clinic in Uganda
Male circumcision significantly reduces the spread of the HIV virus to men, according to research.
In terms of infectious disease, Aids is the biggest killer in Africa, with HIV frequent in the sexually-active populations of many countries.
But the study, carried out by European and African researchers, found that uncircumcised men were at least three times more likely than circumcised men to contract the virus.
They looked at four cities, from different parts of the continent, and noticed marked differences in the incidence of HIV.
Not just sexual behaviour
This, said researchers, could not be explained away simply by differences in sexual behaviour.
However, in some of the cities, circumcision, in which the skin covering the tip of the penis is removed, was far more common, and these had far lower rates of HIV.
Anne Buve, an epidemiologist at the Insititute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, said: "We did find that circumcision confers certain protection against HIV, in that it seems circumcised men do not get HIV as easily as uncircumcised men."
Although the reason for the extra protection has not been proved, the research team suspects that the skin on the glans of the circumcised penis is tougher than that of the foreskin.
It is therefore less likely to suffer small abrasions which increase the chances of HIV being transmitted.
The study focused on Benin's capital Cotonou and Cameroon's capital Yaounde, where circumcision is a widespread cultural practice.
These towns were compared with Ndola in Zambia, and Kisumu in Kenya, where it is not.
Maina Kahindo, another researcher, urged Kenyan health authorities to act.
He said: "Both at national level and at ethnic leadership level, the issue of circumcision needs to be discussed and encouraged."
Study finds circumcision may protect men from HIV
Channel News Asia, 31 January 2000
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/archive/2000/1/31/world19439.htm
Circumcision may somehow protect men from sexual transmission of the AIDS virus, researchers said on Sunday, but they admitted they do not have a clue why.
A study in Uganda aimed at examining how couples infect one another found two things seemed to protect people - being older and being circumcised.
"Acquisition of HIV did not occur in any of the circumcised men," Dr. Thomas Quinn of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who led the study, told the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, a meeting of AIDS researchers.
"Age, independent of viral load, appeared to have a protective effect," Quinn added. The highest transmission rate was in people 15 to 29 years old.
Quinn's team, working with 15,000 people in the Rakai district of Uganda, also found that people did not pass on the virus to their partners if they had a naturally low level of HIV in the blood - in this case, 1,500 copies according to standard measures.
He found that the more virus people had in their blood, the more likely they were to pass it on. There were no differences in women infecting men or men infecting women.
Quinn said his team was one of the first to actually go out and test the idea where HIV is raging the worst. More than 23 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are infected with HIV.
The findings might suggest ways of stemming the epidemic.
Telling people to abstain from sex or use condoms has not worked, and the drugs that keep the virus at bay in some patients in rich countries are not available in the poor countries hardest hit by the epidemic.
But the study suggests that using drugs to keep the virus at lower levels, or a vaccine that might do the same without quite curing a patient, might help.
Quinn said he was at a loss to explain why circumcision might affect a man's risk of being infected by a woman.
Circumcision hailed as way to curb Aids
Bryan Appleyard
The Sunday Times, UK
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk
NEW evidence suggests that circumcision of all male babies could help to halt the global Aids epidemic. With 50m living cases and more than 16m deaths, the disease is now the worst human health disaster since the Black Death.
The thesis - laid out in a scientific paper to be published soon - seems likely to create huge controversy as it represents a complete change in accepted ideas about the transmission of Aids.
One of the paper's authors, Roger Short, professor of obstetrics at Melbourne University and a respected scientist with long experience of Aids-ravaged areas, has been told he cannot address the subject at a forthcoming international conference.
Short and his co-author, Dr Robert Szabo, are convinced that a high level of receptors - sites to which invading organisms attach themselves - on the inside of the foreskin make it responsible for transmission.
Short and Szabo noted a sharp difference in the prevalence of HIV infection in the "Aids belt" countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In some areas the infection rates are as high as 25%, in others as low as 1%. The lower infection rates were clearly associated with the practice of male circumcision.
"The presence of an intact foreskin," says the Short-Szabo paper, "has consistently been shown to be the single most significant factor associated with the much higher prevalence of HIV in countries of the Aids belt."
The link is stronger than with more familiar indicators such as promiscuity, other sexually transmitted diseases and multiple marriage.
Even more startling evidence came from a recent study in Uganda, reported in February. This showed that among a large group of "discordant couples" - where one is infected and one not - no circumcised males became infected over 30 months, even though their wives were HIV-positive. Short describes these results as "staggeringly significant".
Outside Africa there is the same pattern. Countries with low circumcision rates, such as Thailand, India and Cambodia, have between 10 and 50 times the rates of infection compared with countries with high circumcision rates, such as the Philippines, Bangladesh and Indonesia.
Once they get ethical clearance in Australia, Short and Szabo intend to test their conclusions by applying live HIV virus to newly removed foreskins to check its rate of uptake. They could have definite results within weeks.
If experimentally confirmed, the implications are radical. Short and Szabo believe that about 80% of male HIV infections in the world happen through the foreskin.
Short is not advocating adult circumcision, a painful and potentially dangerous operation. But future generations could be saved if mass circumcision began now.
Short believes his findings should be spread globally, as rapidly as possible.
"There has been insufficient focus on prevention," he said, "and too much emphasis on the search for a vaccine." Despite the billions poured into research, there is still no sign of an Aids vaccine.
The crisis in sub-Saharan Africa - where life expectancy rates at birth as a result of Aids have dropped from 59 to 44 - is out of control.
"The whole of my life's prejudice has been anti-circumcision," said Short.
"I've written papers against it. I didn't believe the benefits outweighed the costs. If God had made us the way we were, why remove a sound organ? But I have been totally converted."
posted on February 6, 2003 09:56:41 PM new
If circumcision was all the dangerous, I doubt there'd be very many Jewish people around today. The risks must be pretty tiny, 'cause I haven't heard anything about male babies dropping like flies. Given the prevalence of circumcision in this country, and given the intense devotion to their penises that men have, I think there would be a loud outcry on the part of men with damaged penises that would ring across the nation. Haven't heard one. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 6, 2003 10:28:38 PM new
Circumcision, Bunni, is not a popular male topic. In the West, a baby boy usually has circumcision before they leave the hospital after the mother gives birth. Imagine, psychologically if you will, the impact that it has when you are a miserable baby in a cold and bright world, unable to see or interact with the world around you, and suddenly having a blinding pain at your genitals as parts of it are brutally cut off. That first memory sticks around on some level and it makes me wonder just how much of it is responsible for rage and violence in this world?
posted on February 6, 2003 10:35:49 PM new
My son was circumcised at 4 weeks old and a topical anesthetic was used. I was in the room with him and he didn't utter a peep. I'm not religious in any fashion and societal "pressure" had nothing to do with my decision.
posted on February 6, 2003 10:43:26 PM newThat first memory sticks around on some level and it makes me wonder just how much of it is responsible for rage and violence in this world?
Not responsible at all. Human beings were violent and capable of great rage long before circumcision became widespread. It is part of the human condition.
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 7, 2003 12:04:39 AM new
Well, as some religions have it, maybe we ought to start doing Clitorectomies on baby girls. Wouldn't harm them, they wouldn't feel a thing, and it would be soooo cute . . . wouldn't it? Adorable!
posted on February 7, 2003 12:30:05 AM new
Circumcisions and clitorectomies are not equivalent--and I think you know that. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 7, 2003 02:38:20 AM new
I just posted this on the Ain't It the truth....... Thread but it seems to have more relevancy here.
I received this from a good friend up in Maine. I'd credit the author but don't know who wrote it.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, by the name of Common
Sense.
Common Sense lived a long life but died in the United States from heart
failure at the beginning of the new millennium. No one really knows how
old he was, since his birth records long ago were lost in bureaucratic red
tape.
He selflessly devoted his life to service in schools, hospitals, homes,
factories, helping folks get jobs done without fanfare and foolishness.
For decades, petty rules, silly laws, and frivolous lawsuits held no
power over Common Sense.
He was credited with cultivating such valued lessons as to know when to
come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, and that life
isn't always fair.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more
than you earn), reliable parenting strategies (the adults are in charge, not
the kids), and it's okay to come in second.
A veteran of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, and the
Technological Revolution, Common Sense survived cultural and educational
trends including body piercing, multi-language ballots, and "new math."
Alas, his health declined when he became infected with the,
"If-it-makes-you-feel-good-do-it" virus.
In recent decades, his waning strength proved no match for the ravages of
well intentioned, but overbearing regulations. He watched in pain as good
people became ruled by self-seeking lawyers. His health rapidly deteriorated
when schools implemented endless zero-tolerance policies.
Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing
a classmate, a teenager suspended for taking a swig of mouthwash after
lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened
his condition. It declined even further when schools had to get parental
consent to administer aspirin to a student, but could not inform the parents
when a female student was pregnant or wanted an abortion.
Finally, Common Sense lost his will to live as the Ten Commandments
became contraband, Churches became businesses, criminals received better
treatment than their victims, and Federal judges stuck their noses in
everything from the Boy Scouts to professional sports.
Finally, when a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was
hot, she was awarded a huge settlement and Common Sense threw in the towel.
As his end neared, Common Sense drifted in and out of logic, but was kept
informed of developments regarding questionable regulations such as those
for low flow toilets, rocking chairs, and stepladders.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his
wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He
is survived by two stepbrothers: My Rights and Ima Whiner. Not many attended
his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
posted on February 7, 2003 07:17:40 AM new
Just another frivolous lawsuit, imo.
I, too, would like to know what took them 5 years to file their lawsuit.
Anita Flatt signed a circumcision consent form, but hospital staff didn't describe the benefits or risks of the procedure, the lawsuit says.
Most all consent forms state there is risk in ANY surgery. She signed a consent form. PERIOD. If she wanted to know the benefits or risks of the procedure, one would think she'd have asked. Where's her responsiblity in all this?
Had his client known the procedure was so brutal – and provides no medical benefit – she would never have agreed to it, he said.
Brutal???? Come on that's a very strong word for a simple snipping job. No more hurtful [when done on newborns] than any other surgery and they usually aren't done without a local anesthetic being applied. It's not mentioned if in her son's case anesthetic was or wasn't used. And medical benefits....sure...better hygiene.
The parents had a 'choice'. They choose to have the procedure done....now they want money.
posted on February 7, 2003 10:15:57 AM new
>Circumcisions and clitorectomies are not equivalent--and I think you know that.
They're both genital mutilations. However, you and others seem to think that this is wonderful -- if its done on a male. But on a female? Oh, that's a horse of a different color! Mutilation is mutilation and you are holding onto a double-standard and it is repugnant.
posted on February 7, 2003 10:27:08 AM new
Borillar--
Why is it that when someone has an opinion that differs from your own, they are WRONG?
This issue is centuries old and has no right or wrong answer. It is a highly private issue that is decided by parents of the child~yes, parent make decisions for their OWN children. My belief is that whatever parent choose to LEGALLY do for their children is THEIR choice, whether folks like you agree or not. Whatever happened to freedom of choice? Tolerance is a virtue.
Female genitalia mutilation ONLY causes damage and has no redeeming qualities, whereas circumcism has some medical benefits.
posted on February 7, 2003 10:35:47 AM new
This is where Borillar denounces all those who have an opposing viewpoint to his as ignorant, uneducated lazy butts and announces that he is through with the thread and is leaving. Eventually, if all the lazybutts post in every thread, he will become so disgusted, that he will leave here altogether. Hopefully...
posted on February 7, 2003 10:36:45 AM new
Yes, medical benefits....and some preventions later in life are:
What are the risks of not having your son circumcised?
Your son will be at a higher risk of getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) as an infant. Seven to 14 out of 1,000 uncircumcised males get a UTI before the age of 1 year, compared to 1 to 2 out of 1,000 circumcised males.1 A urinary tract infection is painful, can interfere with sleep, and may lead to kidney damage.
As an adult, your son will have a slightly higher risk of getting some sexually transmitted diseases and will be more likely to get cancer of the penis. However, cancer of the penis is very rare, even in uncircumcised males.
Circumcision is only a small factor in preventing some STDs. The most effective way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases is to limit the number of sexual partners and to always use condoms.
Other problems that an uncircumcised male can have are:
The inability to retract the foreskin (phimosis). This is normal in young boys and usually is not a problem. Male infants are born with foreskins that do not retract. Most boys are able to retract the foreskin by age 5. If a child has signs of infection with phimosis, he may need to be circumcised. A boy who has reached puberty and is still unable to retract his foreskin also may need a circumcision.
A painful and dangerous condition called paraphimosis, in which the foreskin cannot be replaced over the head of the penis. This happens when the foreskin is not replaced over the head of the penis after it has been retracted and the foreskin is tight or becomes inflamed.
Paraphimosis may happen when an infant's or young boy's foreskin is forcibly retracted. (Never force a foreskin to retract before it has retracted on its own.)
An inflammation of the head of the penis (balanitis). This is rare in children and more common in adults.
posted on February 7, 2003 12:44:51 PM new
In a clitorectomy, Borillar, the entire organ is removed. Certainly not the equivalent of a circumcision.
Clitorectomies are performed to control a female's sex life & desires. Certainly not the case with circumcisions.
Circumcisions have beneficial results. Certainly not the case with clitorectomies. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 7, 2003 01:21:14 PM new
>This issue is centuries old and has no right or wrong answer. It is a highly private issue that is decided by parents of the child~yes, parent make decisions for their OWN children. My belief is that whatever parent choose to LEGALLY do for their children is THEIR choice, whether folks like you agree or not. Whatever happened to freedom of choice? Tolerance is a virtue.
Wendywins, in many socities, the hood that goes over the clitorus, the labia, and other folds are all surgigcally removed - for asthetic reasons. Your arguement about parental rights is on a parr with the parent's right to keep them from seeking medical treatment for religious reasons. According to what you just said, a parent could cut off the fingers and toes of their babies and that woud also be OK.
>In a clitorectomy, Borillar, the entire organ is removed. Certainly not the equivalent of a circumcision.
I know exactly what a clitorectomy is, bunni. And I was correct by stating that mutilation is mutilation. The foreskin was not put there as an parental option and it serves a purpose grseater than your appendix does.
Serious medical studies have always shown that the loss of the foreskin can not be justified by any measure of medical benefits. As stated above to wendywins, we may as well start chopping off the labias and hoods off of baby girls, because studies can show just how many girls will suffer less problems without them. Therefore, these medical reasons FOR circumcision are irrelevant and you are advocating mutilation of a baby.
posted on February 7, 2003 02:30:40 PM new
Women are less likely to develop cancer of the cervix if their partners are circumcised men rather than men who are not circumcised, said a report in The New England Journal of Medicine (Vol. 346, No. 15: 1105-1112).
Experts believe a penis that has been circumcised is less likely to harbor human papilloma virus (HPV), a virus associated with almost all cases of cervical cancer.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, about 1.2 million male babies or about 65% percent of all male newborns are circumcised each year in the US.
Circumcision has become controversial in recent years. Its advocates in the medical community argue that it prevents urinary tract infections in male babies. It also lowers sexually transmitted infections with HPV that cause genital warts in men. Finally, penile cancer arises less often in men who were circumcised as babies.
Those who do not support the use of circumcision believe that these reasons don’t make up for the pain and possible “mutilation” it causes, as well as the occasional complications.
Now a group of international researchers, led by Xavier Castellsagué, MD, of the Llobregat Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, have uncovered another reason to favor circumcision. They found that women whose partners were uncircumcised were more likely to develop cancer of the cervix.
The researchers studied the male partners of women with cervical cancer.
Castellsagué and his colleagues questioned whether the male partners of women with cervical cancer were circumcised. In addition, they studied male partners of women without cervical cancer. To be as accurate as possible, they only studied male partners in monogamous relationships (males with one sexual partner).
Uncircumcised Men Twice as Likely to Have HPV
The researchers also tested for HPV infection in the males by taking specimens from their penises. The results were matched with whether the men were circumcised.
The first discovery was that men who weren’t circumcised were more than twice as likely to be infected with HPV. In both groups, the chance of HPV infection increased with high-risk sexual activity such as unprotected sex, early age of first sexual activity, and number of partners.
But even more striking was the effect on their partners. Women whose male partners were uncircumcised and had high-risk sexual behavior were two to five times more likely to develop cervical cancer. This high rate of cancer was almost certainly caused by the high rate of HPV infection in these men.
In an accompanying editorial, Hans-Olov Adami, MD, PhD, of Sweden and Dimitri Trichopoulos, MD, PhD, from the Harvard School of Public Health commended the study. But they cautioned that one can never be completely sure of studies that rely on sexual histories.
Nevertheless, they were confident enough in the study to agree that an uncircumcised man is more likely to have HPV infection and that his partner will more readily develop cervical cancer.
posted on February 7, 2003 02:32:29 PM newwe may as well start chopping off the labias and hoods off of baby girls, because studies can show just how many girls will suffer less problems without them.
Borillar - These procedures are illegal in the US. Studies that show girls will suffer less????? Really....please point us in the direction of THAT study.
posted on February 7, 2003 02:43:58 PM new
"Wendywins, in many socities, the hood that goes over the clitorus, the labia, and other folds are all surgigcally removed - for asthetic reasons. Your arguement about parental rights is on a parr with the parent's right to keep them from seeking medical treatment for religious reasons. According to what you just said, a parent could cut off the fingers and toes of their babies and that woud also be OK."
I did mention LEGALITY. Cutting off fingers and toes (functioning body parts) is ILLEGAL. Knowingly allowing your child to die (religious or not) is ILLEGAL. Circumcision is not done for asthetic reasons. I was adamantly opposed to circumcision and if my first child were a boy, he would has been uncircumcised. After I read medical studies, I decided it was in my son's best interest to be protected.
posted on February 7, 2003 03:04:44 PM new
The issue in court is informed consent. If she was not fully informed before signing the consent, there is not informed consent, and there is a case. Presenting a booklet that she says she didn't get, and shoving a paper in someone's face to sign is not informed consent. You may find it silly, but informed consent is a primary consideration in surgical procedures. Circs are surgical procedures.
I remember a consent form a while back that said doctor, not nurse, was to explain the procedure. It was not taken well when I refused to get the consent, but tough barnacles. When a legal form says doctor, it means doctor.
I'd like to hear how this case goes.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on February 7, 2003 03:19:39 PM new
>Cutting off fingers and toes (functioning body parts) is ILLEGAL.
The foreskin is also a "functioning body part" and yet, mutilation of this is legal. Reliogous beliefs make this type of male mutilation legal and it should be abolished as something that we grew up out of alongside human sacrifices.
posted on February 7, 2003 03:20:35 PM new
>Borillar - These procedures are illegal in the US. Studies that show girls will suffer less????? Really....please point us in the direction of THAT study.
posted on February 7, 2003 03:35:07 PM new
snowy - As an OBGYN surgery scheduling clerk, I presented consent forms to the patients for their signature all the time. On the consent form it stated they had discussed the benefits and the risks with their doctor. That's all. Maybe in this case, the the consent form was different?
Borillar - No reading comprehension on my part. And it's nice that parents can make an informed decision and not just think your way is the only right way.
posted on February 7, 2003 03:37:52 PM new
from what i just heard on the news
"she put her intials by each section of the consent form"
also, "each section of the said consent form was read to her"
and according to the Forum today:
Flatt told the jury Thursday she had not received any information prior to her son’s birth about the risks and benefits of circumcision.
She says she never received the booklet MeritCare gives out to parents, and only talked to Kantak briefly about the pain involved before the procedure was performed.
Attorney Zenas Baer started his examination by asking Flatt why she had filed the lawsuit.
“He was subjected to an unnecessary surgery and he was harmed and he has an injury,” Flatt, an attorney at Baer’s law firm, told the jury.
That injury, she claims, is the loss of a healthy and functional foreskin.
Flatt is asking for an unspecified amount in damages.
posted on February 7, 2003 03:49:00 PM new
I too considered suing for the horrible procedure (can't even say the word) Till my Mom told me if I hadn't had it done. I would have never been able to walk without tripping.
That little humor besides. Anyone that agrees with this moron and the scumbag attorney is not worth debating with. I could understand debating the procedure itself, the way it's done and many other things.
When the Reverend Colin is the Emperor of the Universe. I will have people like this publicly executed.
I do need suggestions as to how to execute them.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 7, 2003 03:56:16 PM new
Yes. I had been pulled out of my unit, and it was a procedure that I wasn't familiar with, so I asked if the doc had discussed it with the patient. When I got a no for an answer, well, I took it back to the station unsigned. I don't have MD or DO after my name.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
