Flatt v. Kantak and Meritcare: Difference between revisions
m wikify Informed consent |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Wikify. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Flatt v. Kantak and Meritcare''' is a 1999 North Dakota case. The parents of Josiah Flatt sued in [https://www.ndcourts.gov/court-locations/cass-county Cass County District Court], Civil Case No. 99-3761, Dr. [https://www.sanfordhealth.org/doctors/sunita-kantak Sunita Kantak] who circumcised Josiah Flatt and [https://library.ndsu.edu/fargo-history/?q=content/fargo-clinic-and-meritcare-health-system Meritcare Hospital of Fargo] where he was circumcised. The plaintiffs were represented by [[Zenas Baer]] of Hawley, Minnesota.<ref name="forum1999">{{REFnews | '''Flatt v. Kantak and Meritcare''' is a 1999 North Dakota case. The parents of Josiah Flatt sued in [https://www.ndcourts.gov/court-locations/cass-county Cass County District Court], Civil Case No. 99-3761, Dr. [https://www.sanfordhealth.org/doctors/sunita-kantak Sunita Kantak] who circumcised Josiah Flatt and [https://library.ndsu.edu/fargo-history/?q=content/fargo-clinic-and-meritcare-health-system Meritcare Hospital of Fargo] where he was [[circumcised]]. The plaintiffs were represented by [[Zenas Baer]] of Hawley, Minnesota.<ref name="forum1999">{{REFnews | ||
|title=Fargo couple want ban on female genital mutilation to include boys | |title=Fargo couple want ban on female genital mutilation to include boys | ||
|url=http://www.circumstitions.com/Law.html#flatt | |url=http://www.circumstitions.com/Law.html#flatt | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
== Trial == | == Trial == | ||
Presiding Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger denied a motion for summary judgment and said the case may proceed to trial on 3 February 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.’ [[J. Steven Svoboda]], executive director of [[Attorneys for the Rights of the Child]] (ARC) commented, "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."<ref>{{REFweb | Presiding Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger denied a motion for summary judgment and said the case may proceed to trial on 3 February 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.’ [[J. Steven Svoboda]], executive director of [[Attorneys for the Rights of the Child]] (ARC) commented, "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."<ref>{{REFweb | ||
|url=http://www.boystoo.com/press/flattpress.htm#Attorneys | |url=http://www.boystoo.com/press/flattpress.htm#Attorneys | ||
|archived= | |archived= | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Judge Rothe-Seeger issued an order in limine to exclude from the evidence presented pictures of a circumcision, the circumcision instruments, and other matters.<ref>{{REFdocument | Judge Rothe-Seeger issued an order in limine to exclude from the evidence presented pictures of a [[circumcision]], the circumcision instruments, and other matters.<ref>{{REFdocument | ||
|title=Order on Motions in Limine | |title=Order on Motions in Limine | ||
|url=http://www.boystoo.com/legal/Order%20On%20Motions%20In%20Limine.pdf | |url=http://www.boystoo.com/legal/Order%20On%20Motions%20In%20Limine.pdf | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
}}</ref> served as expert witnesses for the defendants. | }}</ref> served as expert witnesses for the defendants. | ||
The jury ruled that Dr. Kantak was not negligent in in explaining the risks of circumcision to Anita Flatt for her newborn son, Josiah.<ref name="forster2003">{{REFnews | The jury ruled that Dr. Kantak was not negligent in in explaining the [[Circumcision_risks| risks of circumcision]] to Anita Flatt for her newborn son, Josiah.<ref name="forster2003">{{REFnews | ||
|title=Judge hears circumcision trial request | |title=Judge hears circumcision trial request | ||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/theforum07-09-03/ | |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/theforum07-09-03/ | ||