Changes

}}</ref>

Anita Flatt gave birth to a son early on 6 March 1997. That evening, a nurse asked Anita Flatt to sign a consent form to permit the [[circumcision]] of newborn Josiah Flatt. The Flatts allege that the consent form was deficient in not stating the benefits or the risks of the procedure. According to the lawsuit, Flatt was still on medication and in great pain at the time the consent form was presented.<ref name="forum1999" />

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

Zenas Baer, attorney for the plaintiffs petitioned the court for a new trial.<ref name="forster2003" />

{{LINKS}}

* http://www.circumstitions.com/Law.html

* http://arclaw.org/resources/articles/circumcision-case-proceed-trial

[[Category:Litigation]]

[[Category:Litigation over circumcision]]

[[Category:From IntactWiki]]